Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Hellenic J Cardiol ; 2024 Jul 31.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39094787

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Right heart catheterization (RHC) is a common diagnostic tool and of special importance in the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Until today, there have been no clear instructions or guidelines on which venous access to prefer. This meta-analysis assessed whether the choice of the venous access site for elective RHC has an impact on procedural or clinical outcomes. METHODS: A structured literature search was performed. Single-arm reports and controlled trials reporting event data were eligible. The primary endpoint was a composite of access-related and overall complications. RESULTS: Nineteen studies, including 6509 RHC procedures, were eligible. The results were analyzed in two groups. The first group compared central venous access (CVA; n = 2072) with peripheral venous access (PVA; n = 2680) and included only multi-arm studies (n = 12, C/P comparison). In the second group, all studies (n = 19, threeway comparison) were assessed to compare the three individual access ways. The overall complication rate was low at 1.0% (n = 68). The primary endpoint in the C/P comparison occurred significantly less for PVA than for CVA (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.004). In the threeway comparison, PVA had a significantly lower complication rate than femoral access (0.3% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.04). Jugular access had the numerically highest complication rate (2.0%), but the difference was not significant compared to peripheral (0.3%; p = 0.29) or femoral access (1.1%; p = 0.32). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that PVA for RHC has a significantly lower complication rate than CVA. There was a low level of certainty and high heterogeneity. This pooled data analysis indicated PVA as the primary venous access for RHC.

2.
Clin Res Cardiol ; 112(12): 1824-1834, 2023 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37515604

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The exact incidence and predictors of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to find post-procedural AF incidence rates and differences due to different screening strategies and devices. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Cochrane, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Controlled trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included into this meta-analysis. The incidence of new-onset AF was the primary outcome. Further parameters were surveillance strategy, device type, AF treatment and neurological events. New AF was determined as early onset within one month after implantation and late thereafter. RESULTS: 8 controlled trials and 16 cohort studies were eligible for quantitative analysis. 7643 patients received percutaneous PFO closure after cryptogenic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, 117 with other indications, whereas 1792 patients formed the control group. Meta-analysis of controlled trials showed an AF incidence of 5.1% in the interventional and 1.6% in the conservative arm, respectively (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.46-6.86, P = 0.03, I2 = 55%). 4.7% received high-quality surveillance strategy with Holter-ECG or Loop recorder whereby AF incidence was overall higher compared to the low-quality group with 12-lead ECG only (3.3-15% vs. 0.2-4.3%). Heterogeneous results on time of AF onset were found, limited by different follow-up strategies. CardioSEAL and Starflex seemed to have higher AF incidences in early and late onset with 4.5% and 4.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous PFO closure led to higher AF post-procedural incidence compared to the conservative strategy. Heterogeneity in surveillance and follow-up strategy limited the generalizability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022359945).


Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Foramen Oval Permeable , Ataque Isquémico Transitorio , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico , Dispositivo Oclusor Septal , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Humanos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Foramen Oval Permeable/complicaciones , Foramen Oval Permeable/diagnóstico , Foramen Oval Permeable/epidemiología , Fibrilación Atrial/diagnóstico , Fibrilación Atrial/epidemiología , Fibrilación Atrial/complicaciones , Prevención Secundaria/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Cateterismo Cardíaco/efectos adversos , Dispositivo Oclusor Septal/efectos adversos
3.
Clin Res Cardiol ; 112(5): 633-644, 2023 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36656375

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Deep implantation position is a risk factor for PPM implantation. Thus, in the field of self-expandable (SE) transcatheter heart valves (THV) cusp overlap projection (COP) technique was implemented to reduce parallax, allowing a more precise guidance of implantation depth. AIMS: This meta-analysis aims to report the outcome of patients undergoing TAVR with SE THV using COP versus conventional implantation technique (CIT). METHODS: Systematical search in MEDLINE and EMBASE yielded five observational controlled studies comparing both implantation techniques for the SE Evolut prosthesis (Medtronic Intern. Ltd., CA, USA) and fulfilling the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Totally, 1227 patients were included, comprising 641 who underwent COP and 586 CIT TAVR. Incidence of post-procedural need for PPM implantation was significantly lower in COP group (9.8% vs 20.6%; OR = 0.43; p < 0.00001). This was accompanied by significantly higher implantation position in COP group (mean difference distance from distal end of the intraventricular portion of the THV to the non-coronary cusp (NCC): - 1.03 mm; p = 0.00001). Incidence of new-onset left bundle branch block did not differ. Regarding procedural and 30-day mortality, technical success, post-procedural aortic regurgitation, and rates of multiple device implantation, no difference between COP and CIT was found. CONCLUSION: COP is an effective and safe implantation technique to reduce the need for a permanent pacemaker implantation during TAVR with SE Evolut prosthesis.


Asunto(s)
Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica , Prótesis Valvulares Cardíacas , Marcapaso Artificial , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter , Humanos , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Prótesis Valvulares Cardíacas/efectos adversos , Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Factores de Riesgo , Diseño de Prótesis
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA