Heart rhythm · 2019
Coronary venoplasty during cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantations: Acute results and clinical outcomes.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Boey Elaine, Tan Eugene S J, Yeo Wee Tiong, Singh Devinder, Lim Toon Wei, Kojodjojo Pipin, Seow Swee-Chong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Optimal left ventricular (LV) lead placement improves response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) but can be hindered by unfavorable venous anatomy. Interventional procedures in the coronary veins have been described with promising short-term outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary venoplasty (PCV) during CRT implantation and assess medium-term lead performances and clinical outcomes against matched controls not requiring PCV.
METHODS: Each consecutive PCV case was matched according to age, gender, and bundle branch morphology to 2 controls from a large prospective registry of CRT recipients. Demographics, procedural success, lead performance, and response to CRT were tracked using a comprehensive electronic medical records system.
RESULTS: Of 422 consecutive CRT recipients treated between 2012 to 2018, 29 patients (6.9%; mean age 65.7 ± 10.7 years; 7 female; 17 ischemic cardiomyopathy; 22 left bundle branch block) required PCV, which was successful in 21 cases (72%). Target veins measuring 1.1 ± 0.6 mm were dilated by noncompliant balloons with mean diameter 2.8 ± 0.5 mm. No complications occurred. Fluoroscopic and procedural durations were longer in the PCV group (P <.01) Over mean follow-up of 33.0 ± 25.0 months, no differences in lead performance, CRT response, or 2-year survival were observed compared to the control group.
CONCLUSION: PCV during CRT device implant is typically successful, safe and associated with long-term clinical outcomes comparable to patients who did not need PCV. This is an important technique to optimize LV lead placement and maximize CRT response.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary venoplasty (PCV) during CRT implantation and assess medium-term lead performances and clinical outcomes against matched controls not requiring PCV.
METHODS: Each consecutive PCV case was matched according to age, gender, and bundle branch morphology to 2 controls from a large prospective registry of CRT recipients. Demographics, procedural success, lead performance, and response to CRT were tracked using a comprehensive electronic medical records system.
RESULTS: Of 422 consecutive CRT recipients treated between 2012 to 2018, 29 patients (6.9%; mean age 65.7 ± 10.7 years; 7 female; 17 ischemic cardiomyopathy; 22 left bundle branch block) required PCV, which was successful in 21 cases (72%). Target veins measuring 1.1 ± 0.6 mm were dilated by noncompliant balloons with mean diameter 2.8 ± 0.5 mm. No complications occurred. Fluoroscopic and procedural durations were longer in the PCV group (P <.01) Over mean follow-up of 33.0 ± 25.0 months, no differences in lead performance, CRT response, or 2-year survival were observed compared to the control group.
CONCLUSION: PCV during CRT device implant is typically successful, safe and associated with long-term clinical outcomes comparable to patients who did not need PCV. This is an important technique to optimize LV lead placement and maximize CRT response.