BackgroundRadial artery access is the primary approach for coronary interventions due to higher safety profile in comparison to femoral access. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the main complication of transradial catheterization that can lead to severe symptoms and a permanent artery occlusion. The incidence of RAO after transradial access ranges from 5 to 38% and data regarding treatment is scarce. Whether anticoagulation and vasoactive medication provides an additional benefit in recovery of radial artery patency (RAP) after catheterization has not been investigated in detail.AimThe objective was to investigate the impact of anticoagulation and vasoactive medication on regained patency after documented RAO following transradial catheterization.Patients and methodsOverall 2635 patients were screened. 2215 (84%) catheterizations were performed by femoral and 420 (16%) by radial access. In 30 patients RAO was observed. In case of RAO patients were classified in three groups: Anticoagulation, anticoagulation added with alprostadil and controls. Follow-up was conducted after 3 months with ultrasound and clinical examination.ResultsEight patients received anticoagulation and 11 patients anticoagulation together with alprostadil. Eleven patients served as controls. Recovery of RAP after catheterization was higher following either treatment (79.5%) compared to controls (0%, p = 0.006). Subgroup analysis yielded a higher RAP recovery in patients treated with anticoagulation (62.5%) as compared to controls (0%, p = 0.002). No effect on regained RAP was found with additional alprostadil therapy (33.3%) compared to anticoagulation therapy (62.5%, p = 0.229).ConclusionRAO should be treated with anticoagulation to regain patency. Addition of vasoactive medication does not lead to further beneficial effects. Further research is needed regarding preventive and therapeutic strategies following RAO.
Our findings suggest that local anesthesia with conscious sedation using propofol and midazolam is a safe and feasible option for S-ICD implantation procedures using an intermuscular technique.
Despite patients with diabetes mellitus are high-risk patients, the outcome of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure is similar to patients without diabetes mellitus.
Introduction Surgical implantation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) requires preparation of a deeper and larger pocket. Infection and bleeding complications are reported, particularly in patients requiring antiplatelet therapy (APT) or being on oral anticoagulation (OAC), with rates up to 25%. The pulsed electron avalanche knife (PEAK) PlasmaBlade™ has been reported to reduce bleeding complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a PEAK guided S-ICD implantation with respect to perioperative complications. Methods and results We enrolled 36 consecutive patients (75% male; mean age 52.1 ± 14.4 years) undergoing S-ICD implantation. Periprocedural safety endpoints comprised major complications including pocket hematomas, wound infections, bleeding (BARC ≥2) or events requiring interventions. Patients were divided into three groups according to management of their anticoagulation: i.) APT, n = 15 (41.7%); ii.) OAC, n = 10 patients (27.8%); iii.) none (neither OAC nor APT), n = 11 (30.6%). Mean procedure duration was 33.1 ± 13.4 min. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.3 ± 2.1 days. Overall analysis showed no differences between the 3 groups with respect to major complications, major bleeding episodes or other procedural parameters, beside a trend towards more minor hematomas in the OAC group (OAC: 22.2% vs. APT: 11.4% vs. none: 9.1%; p = 0.15). Conclusion The results of our pilot study suggest that intermuscular S-ICD implantation using PEAK is safe and potentially beneficial in patients receiving OAC or APT with respect to prevention of bleeding complications. These results support the rationale for large prospective controlled trials evaluating a beneficial effect of PEAK use in S-ICD implantation procedures.
Introduction: Patients with diabetes mellitus are known to carry an increased risk for surgical site infections and perioperative complications. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator is an established treatment option in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death especially with an increased risk for infection over time. Methods and Results: Forty-eight patients (mean age = 55.0 ± 21.3 years, 31.3% patients with diabetes mellitus, 75% male) who underwent consecutive subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator surgery between February 2016 and May 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Overall adverse events including relevant bleeding complications, any surgical wound problems and infections requiring reoperation or device malfunction were evaluated as primary combined safety endpoint. Patients with diabetes mellitus tended to be older with a higher body mass index compared to non-diabetes mellitus. Procedure duration and postsurgery hospital days were not different in diabetes mellitus versus non-diabetes mellitus patients. Analysis of the primary combined endpoint showed no significant difference but a trend towards higher event rates in the diabetes mellitus group (diabetes mellitus vs non-diabetes mellitus: 20% vs 12.1%, p = 0.119). Conclusion: Diabetes mellitus is a frequent and relevant variable in patients undergoing subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation represented by 31.3% in this consecutive cohort. Our results suggest that diabetes mellitus is not associated with a prolonged hospital stay or increased rate of periprocedural adverse events.
Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a major manifestation of atherosclerosis and a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. PAD itself is associated with increased arterial stiffness with impact on cardiac functions. Previous studies have demonstrated that augmentation index (AIx) and central blood pressure (CBP) correlate with increased cardiovascular mortality. This mechanism has been described as arterio-ventricular (AV) coupling with altered ventricular afterload and a depressed ventricular function, measured by global longitudinal strain (GLS). The impact of PAD-related endovascular treatment on arterial stiffness, central hemodynamics and potential impact on AV coupling has not been elucidated until now. Purpose Aim of the study was to investigate, if endovascular treatment of PAD improves cardiac function via enhanced central hemodynamics and AV coupling. Methods To this aim 77 patients with known symptomatic PAD who underwent interventions in the iliac and femoropopliteal arteries were included in a cross-sectional study. AIx, CBP and GLS were determined using dedicated waveform analysis and echocardiography before and after endovascular treatment. Results Mean age was 65.1±10.4 years with 66.2% male patients. Symptoms were classified by Fontaine classification (stage IIb 80.7%, stage III 5.8% and stage IV 13.5%). Iliac vessel intervention was performed in 16 and femoropopliteal intervention in 61 cases. A stentless approach was feasible in 55 patients with DCB treatment and atherectomy. After endovascular treatment, peripheral perfusion was enhanced (ABI 0.45±0.6 vs 0.81±0.5, p<0.0001). Moreover, central hemodynamics were improved (AIX 33.7±3% vs 27.9±2%, p=0.0008; AP 17.8±2 mmHg vs 14.0±2 mmHg, p=0.0004; central PP 52.4±6 mmHg vs 46.4±6 mmHg, p=0.0001). Impressively, left ventricular function was also significantly improved (GLS −15.7±2.3% vs −17.1±2.8%, p=0.005) with an improvement in AV coupling (PWV/GLS ratio −0.58m/sec% vs −0.56m/sec%, p<0.01). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that endovascular treatment of the peripheral vessels is associated with an improvement of central hemodynamics and left ventricular function via enhanced AV coupling. These prognostic relevant markers of cardiovascular disease could point to an overall potential mortality benefit through PAD treatment. Further investigation of the underlying mechanisms of AV coupling in the setting of endovascular treatment of PAD with impact on cardiovascular mortality is needed in this high-risk population. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None
Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the general population. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events, particularly stroke. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with a higher prevalence of AF and is an independent risk factor of increased mortality and stroke in AF patients. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) for stroke prevention plays an important role in the treatment of patients with AF and increased bleeding risk. The impact of CKD on outcomes after LAAC has not been deeply investigated. We assessed whether percutaneous LAAC is safe and feasible in CKD patients. Material and methods: Ninety-seven patients (mean age 73.9 ±8.5 years) with AF and contraindications for oral anticoagulation (OAC) or complications under OAC underwent LAAC with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug and the Amplatzer Amulet Occluder in an open-label observational single-center study. We classified patients as having normal to mild (KDOQI stage I-II) or moderate to severe (KDOQI stage III-V) CKD. Results: Patients with moderate to severe CKD (n = 49) had increased CHA 2 DS 2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores and were at higher thromboembolic and bleeding risk (CHA 2 DS 2-VASc: 4.08 ±0.79, HAS-BLED: 4.76 ±0.69) than patients with mild to moderate CKD (n = 48, CHA 2 DS 2-VASc: 3.69 ±1.1, HAS-BLED: 4.06 ±0.66; p < 0.001 for both). In both groups, procedural and occlusion success was similar (97.9% vs. 95.9%; p = 0.479). Follow-up of 6 months and from 12 to 36 months revealed effective stroke prevention and no bleeding complication in both groups. Conclusions: In spite of a higher thromboembolic and bleeding risk in patients with severe CKD, LAAC is a safe and feasible option for stroke prevention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.