Clinical cardiology · 2005
FilterWire distal embolic protection device for vein graft stenting: initial single-center experience.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Kolansky Daniel M, Shah Anand J, Mannion Terry, Glaser Ruchira, Hirshfeld John W, Wilensky Robert L, Herrmann Howard C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is associated with a significant incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) related to distal vessel embolization. The FilterWire distal embolic protection device has recently been approved as an adjunct to SVG intervention. We report here our initial experience in a single center in 30 consecutive patients using this device in SVG stenting.
HYPOTHESIS: This study examined the outcomes and complications associated with these devices, as well as whether proficiency with the devices increased with greater experience and whether there were measurable outcome differences between devices.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients in whom a FilterWire device was placed at our hospital between June 2001 and June 2004.
RESULTS: The device was successfully deployed in 29 of 30 patients, and all patients were stented successfully. Overall MACE rate was 6.6%, consistent with reports in larger multicenter clinical trials. Transient decreases in flow were noted while the device was in place in six patients, but improved in five patients with device removal.
CONCLUSIONS: This early experience in a single center using FilterWire embolic protection indicates that excellent clinical results can be obtained by the adoption of filter protection for SVG intervention, without evidence for a detrimental learning curve.
HYPOTHESIS: This study examined the outcomes and complications associated with these devices, as well as whether proficiency with the devices increased with greater experience and whether there were measurable outcome differences between devices.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients in whom a FilterWire device was placed at our hospital between June 2001 and June 2004.
RESULTS: The device was successfully deployed in 29 of 30 patients, and all patients were stented successfully. Overall MACE rate was 6.6%, consistent with reports in larger multicenter clinical trials. Transient decreases in flow were noted while the device was in place in six patients, but improved in five patients with device removal.
CONCLUSIONS: This early experience in a single center using FilterWire embolic protection indicates that excellent clinical results can be obtained by the adoption of filter protection for SVG intervention, without evidence for a detrimental learning curve.