根据血管形态选择经股动脉入路还是上肢入路进行肾脏去神经支配:长期结果。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Journal of Clinical Hypertension Pub Date : 2024-11-17 DOI:10.1111/jch.14937
Yujie Zuo, Hui Dong, Hongwu Li, Wentao Ma, Yubao Zou, Xiongjing Jiang
{"title":"根据血管形态选择经股动脉入路还是上肢入路进行肾脏去神经支配:长期结果。","authors":"Yujie Zuo, Hui Dong, Hongwu Li, Wentao Ma, Yubao Zou, Xiongjing Jiang","doi":"10.1111/jch.14937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of transfemoral access (TFA) versus upper extremity access (UEA) for renal denervation (RDN) based on vascular morphology. This study retrospectively enrolled patients with resistant hypertension who underwent RDN treatment via TFA and UEA (brachial, radial, and ulnar artery) at the Fuwai Hospital between February 2012 and November 2019. Follow-up was conducted at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years after RDN, and the last visit was June 2023. A total of 85 patients were enrolled, 58 (68.2%) of them were treated via TFA, and 27 patients (31.8%) via UEA. The fluoroscopy time was less in the TFA group (12.2 ± 5.7 min vs. 15.2 ± 7.2 min; p = 0.038). The procedure time (TFA group: 40.8 ± 14.9 min vs. UEA group: 38.6 ± 11.6 min; p = 0.506), contrast volume (TFA group: 78.2 ± 25.9 mL vs. UEA group: 91.9 ± 39.7 mL; p = 0.061) were similar between two groups, without procedure-related complications. Fifty-eight participants completed the last visit with a 3-12 year of follow-up (9.5 ± 1.3 years). Compared with baseline, there were no significant differences in the change of office systolic blood pressure (-12.6 ± 21.6 mmHg vs. -13.1 ± 22.8 mmHg; p = 0.933), 24-h mean systolic blood pressure (-11.9 ± 14.2 mmHg vs. -11.3 ± 15.3 mmHg; p = 0.899), the number of antihypertensive drugs, and renal function between two groups. There were three adverse events in the TFA group (3 of 58 patients, 5.2%) versus one (1 of 27 patients, 3.7%) in the UEA group, without a significant difference between the two groups. The study showed RDN via UEA was feasible using a special-designed catheter, particularly in patients with illegal vascular morphology via TFA.</p>","PeriodicalId":50237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selecting Transfemoral Access or Upper Extremity Access for Renal Denervation Based on Vascular Morphology: Long-term Results.\",\"authors\":\"Yujie Zuo, Hui Dong, Hongwu Li, Wentao Ma, Yubao Zou, Xiongjing Jiang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jch.14937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of transfemoral access (TFA) versus upper extremity access (UEA) for renal denervation (RDN) based on vascular morphology. This study retrospectively enrolled patients with resistant hypertension who underwent RDN treatment via TFA and UEA (brachial, radial, and ulnar artery) at the Fuwai Hospital between February 2012 and November 2019. Follow-up was conducted at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years after RDN, and the last visit was June 2023. A total of 85 patients were enrolled, 58 (68.2%) of them were treated via TFA, and 27 patients (31.8%) via UEA. The fluoroscopy time was less in the TFA group (12.2 ± 5.7 min vs. 15.2 ± 7.2 min; p = 0.038). The procedure time (TFA group: 40.8 ± 14.9 min vs. UEA group: 38.6 ± 11.6 min; p = 0.506), contrast volume (TFA group: 78.2 ± 25.9 mL vs. UEA group: 91.9 ± 39.7 mL; p = 0.061) were similar between two groups, without procedure-related complications. Fifty-eight participants completed the last visit with a 3-12 year of follow-up (9.5 ± 1.3 years). Compared with baseline, there were no significant differences in the change of office systolic blood pressure (-12.6 ± 21.6 mmHg vs. -13.1 ± 22.8 mmHg; p = 0.933), 24-h mean systolic blood pressure (-11.9 ± 14.2 mmHg vs. -11.3 ± 15.3 mmHg; p = 0.899), the number of antihypertensive drugs, and renal function between two groups. There were three adverse events in the TFA group (3 of 58 patients, 5.2%) versus one (1 of 27 patients, 3.7%) in the UEA group, without a significant difference between the two groups. The study showed RDN via UEA was feasible using a special-designed catheter, particularly in patients with illegal vascular morphology via TFA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Hypertension\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Hypertension\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.14937\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.14937","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据血管形态评估经股动脉入路(TFA)与上肢入路(UEA)肾脏去神经支配(RDN)的长期疗效和安全性。本研究回顾性纳入了2012年2月至2019年11月期间在阜外医院通过TFA和UEA(肱动脉、桡动脉和尺动脉)接受RDN治疗的抵抗性高血压患者。随访时间为 RDN 治疗后 6 个月、1 年和 3 年,最后一次随访时间为 2023 年 6 月。共有 85 名患者入选,其中 58 人(68.2%)通过 TFA 治疗,27 人(31.8%)通过 UEA 治疗。TFA 组的透视时间更短(12.2±5.7 分钟 vs. 15.2±7.2 分钟;P = 0.038)。两组的手术时间(TFA 组:40.8 ± 14.9 分钟 vs UEA 组:38.6 ± 11.6 分钟;p = 0.506)、造影剂用量(TFA 组:78.2 ± 25.9 mL vs UEA 组:91.9 ± 39.7 mL;p = 0.061)相似,均未出现手术相关并发症。58 名参与者完成了最后一次随访,随访时间为 3-12 年(9.5 ± 1.3 年)。与基线相比,两组患者的办公室收缩压变化(-12.6 ± 21.6 mmHg vs. -13.1 ± 22.8 mmHg; p = 0.933)、24 小时平均收缩压变化(-11.9 ± 14.2 mmHg vs. -11.3 ± 15.3 mmHg; p = 0.899)、服用降压药物的数量以及肾功能均无明显差异。TFA 组发生了 3 起不良事件(58 名患者中发生了 3 起,占 5.2%),而 UEA 组发生了 1 起不良事件(27 名患者中发生了 1 起,占 3.7%),两组之间无显著差异。研究表明,使用特殊设计的导管通过 UEA 进行 RDN 是可行的,特别是对于通过 TFA 进行血管形态不规则的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Selecting Transfemoral Access or Upper Extremity Access for Renal Denervation Based on Vascular Morphology: Long-term Results.

To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of transfemoral access (TFA) versus upper extremity access (UEA) for renal denervation (RDN) based on vascular morphology. This study retrospectively enrolled patients with resistant hypertension who underwent RDN treatment via TFA and UEA (brachial, radial, and ulnar artery) at the Fuwai Hospital between February 2012 and November 2019. Follow-up was conducted at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years after RDN, and the last visit was June 2023. A total of 85 patients were enrolled, 58 (68.2%) of them were treated via TFA, and 27 patients (31.8%) via UEA. The fluoroscopy time was less in the TFA group (12.2 ± 5.7 min vs. 15.2 ± 7.2 min; p = 0.038). The procedure time (TFA group: 40.8 ± 14.9 min vs. UEA group: 38.6 ± 11.6 min; p = 0.506), contrast volume (TFA group: 78.2 ± 25.9 mL vs. UEA group: 91.9 ± 39.7 mL; p = 0.061) were similar between two groups, without procedure-related complications. Fifty-eight participants completed the last visit with a 3-12 year of follow-up (9.5 ± 1.3 years). Compared with baseline, there were no significant differences in the change of office systolic blood pressure (-12.6 ± 21.6 mmHg vs. -13.1 ± 22.8 mmHg; p = 0.933), 24-h mean systolic blood pressure (-11.9 ± 14.2 mmHg vs. -11.3 ± 15.3 mmHg; p = 0.899), the number of antihypertensive drugs, and renal function between two groups. There were three adverse events in the TFA group (3 of 58 patients, 5.2%) versus one (1 of 27 patients, 3.7%) in the UEA group, without a significant difference between the two groups. The study showed RDN via UEA was feasible using a special-designed catheter, particularly in patients with illegal vascular morphology via TFA.

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
Journal of Clinical Hypertension
Journal of Clinical Hypertension PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Hypertension is a peer-reviewed, monthly publication that serves internists, cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, hypertension specialists, primary care practitioners, pharmacists and all professionals interested in hypertension by providing objective, up-to-date information and practical recommendations on the full range of clinical aspects of hypertension. Commentaries and columns by experts in the field provide further insights into our original research articles as well as on major articles published elsewhere. Major guidelines for the management of hypertension are also an important feature of the Journal. Through its partnership with the World Hypertension League, JCH will include a new focus on hypertension and public health, including major policy issues, that features research and reviews related to disease characteristics and management at the population level.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Mediterranean Diet Adherence on the Incidence of New-Onset Hypertension in Adults With Obesity in Korea: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Rationale and Design of a Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Group Study of Esaxerenone Versus Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Older Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension on Calcium Channel Blocker Monotherapy (ESCORT-HT). Renal Denervation: New Evidence Supporting Long-Term Efficacy, Alternative Access Routes, and Cost-Effectiveness. Obesity, aldosterone excess, and mineralocorticoid receptor activation: Parallel or intersected circumstances? Catheter-Based Renal Denervation for Resistant Arterial Hypertension: 10-Year Real-World Follow-Up Data.
×
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