Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2006
Double balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty: multi-track system versus conventional technique.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pedra Carlos A C, Arrieta S Raul, Esteves Cesar A, Braga Sérgio L N, Neves Juliana, Cassar Renata, Pedra Simone R F, Santana M Virginia T, Silva M Aparecida P, Sousa J Eduardo M R, Fontes Valmir F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether double balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty (DBPV) with the Multi-Track system (MTS) may help to simplify the procedure.
BACKGROUND: DBPV is usually required for patients with pulmonary valve stenosis with large annulus. However, it needs two venous accesses and can be technically demanding.
METHODS: From 07/03, 20 consecutive patients (19 +/- 10 yrs) with typical pulmonary valve stenosis underwent DBPV using the MTS (G1). The results were compared with those achieved by conventional DBPV performed in a matched historical group of 28 patients (21 +/- 11 yrs; P = NS) (G2).
RESULTS: MTS balloons were easily advanced through the skin and inflated across the valve. Similar results were observed in regards to residual gradients (12 +/- 11 vs 14 +/- 10 mm Hg; P = NS) and right ventricular to systemic pressures (0.35 +/- 0.22 vs 0.37 +/- 0.26; P = NS). Procedure and fluoroscopic times were significant lower in G1 (78 +/- 24 vs 126 +/- 28; 15 +/- 12 vs 25 +/- 8 min, respectively; both P < 0.001). There was no major complication. Median follow-up was 1.8 yr for G1 and 5 yr for G2 (P = 0.037). At the last visit, peak instantaneous gradient across the right ventricular outflow tract by echocardiography was a mean 22 +/- 10 mm Hg for G1 and 25 +/- 9 mm Hg for G2 (P = NS). No patient had severe pulmonary insufficiency or required reintervention.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the MTS helped to expedite the procedure providing satisfactory midterm clinical outcomes, similar to those observed with the conventional DBPV technique.
BACKGROUND: DBPV is usually required for patients with pulmonary valve stenosis with large annulus. However, it needs two venous accesses and can be technically demanding.
METHODS: From 07/03, 20 consecutive patients (19 +/- 10 yrs) with typical pulmonary valve stenosis underwent DBPV using the MTS (G1). The results were compared with those achieved by conventional DBPV performed in a matched historical group of 28 patients (21 +/- 11 yrs; P = NS) (G2).
RESULTS: MTS balloons were easily advanced through the skin and inflated across the valve. Similar results were observed in regards to residual gradients (12 +/- 11 vs 14 +/- 10 mm Hg; P = NS) and right ventricular to systemic pressures (0.35 +/- 0.22 vs 0.37 +/- 0.26; P = NS). Procedure and fluoroscopic times were significant lower in G1 (78 +/- 24 vs 126 +/- 28; 15 +/- 12 vs 25 +/- 8 min, respectively; both P < 0.001). There was no major complication. Median follow-up was 1.8 yr for G1 and 5 yr for G2 (P = 0.037). At the last visit, peak instantaneous gradient across the right ventricular outflow tract by echocardiography was a mean 22 +/- 10 mm Hg for G1 and 25 +/- 9 mm Hg for G2 (P = NS). No patient had severe pulmonary insufficiency or required reintervention.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the MTS helped to expedite the procedure providing satisfactory midterm clinical outcomes, similar to those observed with the conventional DBPV technique.