经导管主动脉瓣植入术患者的经股入路计算机断层扫描引导。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardiology journal Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5603/CJ.a2021.0053
Łukasz Wiewiórka, Jarosław Trębacz, Robert Sobczyński, Maciej Stąpór, Elżbieta Ostrowska-Kaim, Janusz Konstanty-Kalandyk, Robert Musiał, Andrzej Gackowski, Krzysztof Malinowski, Paweł Kleczyński, Krzysztof Żmudka, Bogusław Kapelak, Jacek Legutko
{"title":"经导管主动脉瓣植入术患者的经股入路计算机断层扫描引导。","authors":"Łukasz Wiewiórka,&nbsp;Jarosław Trębacz,&nbsp;Robert Sobczyński,&nbsp;Maciej Stąpór,&nbsp;Elżbieta Ostrowska-Kaim,&nbsp;Janusz Konstanty-Kalandyk,&nbsp;Robert Musiał,&nbsp;Andrzej Gackowski,&nbsp;Krzysztof Malinowski,&nbsp;Paweł Kleczyński,&nbsp;Krzysztof Żmudka,&nbsp;Bogusław Kapelak,&nbsp;Jacek Legutko","doi":"10.5603/CJ.a2021.0053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transfemoral approach (TFA) is the most common access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Percutaneous femoral access (PA) is preferred over the surgical approach (SA), however, may be associated with a higher risk of access site complications. Thus, we aimed to assess outcomes of computed tomography-guided tailored approach to percutaneous and surgical TFA in patients undergoing TAVI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated data of 158 patients, who underwent TAVI via femoral route between January 2017 and December 2018. In the PA group, vascular closure was performed with the use of two percutaneous suture devices and an additional mechanical seal device. We compared complications rate and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 158 patients (92%; mean age 79.6 years, 60.8% female), in 92 (61%) patients PA was performed and in 66 (39%) patients SA was used. Median (interquartile range) radiation exposure as well as contrast volume dose was higher in the PA group compared to the SA group 614.0 (410.0; 1104.0) mGy vs. 405 (240.5; 658.0) mGy (p < 0.001) and 150.0 (120.0; 180.7) mL vs. 130.0 (100.0; 160.0) mL (p = 0.04), respectively. Bleeding complications were similar in the PA group 11 (12.2%) compared to 5 (8.62%) in the SA group (p = 0.48). Median length of hospital stay was also similar in the PA and the SA group 6.00 (5.00; 8.00) days vs. 6.00 (4.00; 8.00) days, respectively (p = 0.31).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Computed tomography-guided PA in TAVI may provide comparable procedural outcomes compared to the SA, despite a higher radiation dose and the use of contrast dye, while being less invasive.</p>","PeriodicalId":9492,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology journal","volume":"30 1","pages":"51-58"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/50/c9/cardj-30-1-51.PMC9987546.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Computed tomography guided tailored approach to transfemoral access in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.\",\"authors\":\"Łukasz Wiewiórka,&nbsp;Jarosław Trębacz,&nbsp;Robert Sobczyński,&nbsp;Maciej Stąpór,&nbsp;Elżbieta Ostrowska-Kaim,&nbsp;Janusz Konstanty-Kalandyk,&nbsp;Robert Musiał,&nbsp;Andrzej Gackowski,&nbsp;Krzysztof Malinowski,&nbsp;Paweł Kleczyński,&nbsp;Krzysztof Żmudka,&nbsp;Bogusław Kapelak,&nbsp;Jacek Legutko\",\"doi\":\"10.5603/CJ.a2021.0053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transfemoral approach (TFA) is the most common access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Percutaneous femoral access (PA) is preferred over the surgical approach (SA), however, may be associated with a higher risk of access site complications. Thus, we aimed to assess outcomes of computed tomography-guided tailored approach to percutaneous and surgical TFA in patients undergoing TAVI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated data of 158 patients, who underwent TAVI via femoral route between January 2017 and December 2018. In the PA group, vascular closure was performed with the use of two percutaneous suture devices and an additional mechanical seal device. We compared complications rate and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 158 patients (92%; mean age 79.6 years, 60.8% female), in 92 (61%) patients PA was performed and in 66 (39%) patients SA was used. Median (interquartile range) radiation exposure as well as contrast volume dose was higher in the PA group compared to the SA group 614.0 (410.0; 1104.0) mGy vs. 405 (240.5; 658.0) mGy (p < 0.001) and 150.0 (120.0; 180.7) mL vs. 130.0 (100.0; 160.0) mL (p = 0.04), respectively. Bleeding complications were similar in the PA group 11 (12.2%) compared to 5 (8.62%) in the SA group (p = 0.48). Median length of hospital stay was also similar in the PA and the SA group 6.00 (5.00; 8.00) days vs. 6.00 (4.00; 8.00) days, respectively (p = 0.31).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Computed tomography-guided PA in TAVI may provide comparable procedural outcomes compared to the SA, despite a higher radiation dose and the use of contrast dye, while being less invasive.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiology journal\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"51-58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/50/c9/cardj-30-1-51.PMC9987546.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiology journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0053\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0053","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:经股入路(TFA)是经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)最常见的入路。经皮股骨入路(PA)优于手术入路(SA),然而,经皮股骨入路可能与较高的入路并发症风险相关。因此,我们的目的是评估计算机断层扫描引导下的经皮和外科TFA治疗TAVI患者的效果。方法:我们评估了2017年1月至2018年12月期间经股路行TAVI的158例患者的数据。在PA组,血管闭合使用两个经皮缝合装置和一个额外的机械密封装置。我们比较了并发症发生率和结果。结果:158例患者中(92%;平均年龄79.6岁,女性60.8%),92例(61%)患者行PA, 66例(39%)患者行SA。与SA组相比,PA组的中位(四分位数范围)辐射暴露和对比剂体积剂量更高614.0 (410.0;1104.0) vs. 405 (240.5;658.0) mGy (p < 0.001)和150.0 (120.0;180.7 mL vs. 130.0 (100.0;160.0) mL (p = 0.04)。PA组出血并发症11例(12.2%),SA组5例(8.62%)(p = 0.48)。PA组和SA组的中位住院时间也相似,分别为6.00 (5.00;8.00)天vs. 6.00 (4.00;8.00)天(p = 0.31)。结论:在TAVI中,尽管使用了更高的辐射剂量和造影剂,但与SA相比,计算机断层扫描引导下的PA可以提供与SA相当的手术结果,同时侵入性较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Computed tomography guided tailored approach to transfemoral access in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Background: Transfemoral approach (TFA) is the most common access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Percutaneous femoral access (PA) is preferred over the surgical approach (SA), however, may be associated with a higher risk of access site complications. Thus, we aimed to assess outcomes of computed tomography-guided tailored approach to percutaneous and surgical TFA in patients undergoing TAVI.

Methods: We evaluated data of 158 patients, who underwent TAVI via femoral route between January 2017 and December 2018. In the PA group, vascular closure was performed with the use of two percutaneous suture devices and an additional mechanical seal device. We compared complications rate and outcomes.

Results: Of the 158 patients (92%; mean age 79.6 years, 60.8% female), in 92 (61%) patients PA was performed and in 66 (39%) patients SA was used. Median (interquartile range) radiation exposure as well as contrast volume dose was higher in the PA group compared to the SA group 614.0 (410.0; 1104.0) mGy vs. 405 (240.5; 658.0) mGy (p < 0.001) and 150.0 (120.0; 180.7) mL vs. 130.0 (100.0; 160.0) mL (p = 0.04), respectively. Bleeding complications were similar in the PA group 11 (12.2%) compared to 5 (8.62%) in the SA group (p = 0.48). Median length of hospital stay was also similar in the PA and the SA group 6.00 (5.00; 8.00) days vs. 6.00 (4.00; 8.00) days, respectively (p = 0.31).

Conclusions: Computed tomography-guided PA in TAVI may provide comparable procedural outcomes compared to the SA, despite a higher radiation dose and the use of contrast dye, while being less invasive.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiology journal
Cardiology journal CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.30%
发文量
188
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Cardiology Journal is a scientific, peer-reviewed journal covering a broad spectrum of topics in cardiology. The journal has been published since 1994 and over the years it has become an internationally recognized journal of cardiological and medical community. Cardiology Journal is the journal for practicing cardiologists, researchers, and young trainees benefiting from broad spectrum of useful educational content.
期刊最新文献
Repeat cryoablation as a redo procedure for atrial fibrillation ablation: Is it a good choice? Prevalence and prognosis of anxiety, insomnia, and type D personality in patients with myocardial infarction: A Spanish cohort. The importance of blood pressure measurements at the emergency department in detection of arterial hypertension. Left atrial appendage filling defect in exclusive early-phase scanning of dual-phase cardiac computed tomography: An indicator for elevated thromboembolic risk. Characteristics of women with type 2 diabetes and heart failure in Spain. The DIABET-IC study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1