EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2015
A propensity score-matched comparison between Cardia and Amplatzer PFO closure devices - insights from the SOLUTION registry (Swiss percutaneOus patent foramen ovale cLosUre in recurrent clinical events prevenTION).
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Puricel Serban, Arroyo Diego, Goy Jean-Jacques, Praz Fabien, Palhais Nuno, Wahl Andreas, Stauffer Jean-Christophe, Togni Mario, Berger Alexandre, Meier Bernhard, Cook Stéphane
Аннотация
AIMS: To compare clinical outcome of Amplatzer PFO (APFO) to Cardia PFO (CPFO) occluder. Percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure prevents stroke recurrence in stroke due to paradoxical embolism.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke, TIA, or peripheral embolism at follow-up. The secondary endpoint was residual shunt. Outcome was compared among 934 (APFO: 712; CPFO: 222) patients, and in 297 propensity score-matched patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 29 patients (0.71/100 patient-years): four (2%) with the CPFO (0.31/100 patient-years), and 25 (4%) with the APFO (0.89/100 patient-years) (p=0.20). Residual shunt at six months was more frequent with the CPFO (31% versus 9%, p<0.001). No differences in residual shunts were seen at the last available echocardiographic follow-up (9±18 months): APFO 11%, CPFO 14%, p=0.22.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that PFO closure with APFO or CPFO is equally effective for the prevention of recurrent events. Residual shunt was more frequent at six months with CPFO, but was similar to APFO at later follow-up.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke, TIA, or peripheral embolism at follow-up. The secondary endpoint was residual shunt. Outcome was compared among 934 (APFO: 712; CPFO: 222) patients, and in 297 propensity score-matched patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 29 patients (0.71/100 patient-years): four (2%) with the CPFO (0.31/100 patient-years), and 25 (4%) with the APFO (0.89/100 patient-years) (p=0.20). Residual shunt at six months was more frequent with the CPFO (31% versus 9%, p<0.001). No differences in residual shunts were seen at the last available echocardiographic follow-up (9±18 months): APFO 11%, CPFO 14%, p=0.22.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that PFO closure with APFO or CPFO is equally effective for the prevention of recurrent events. Residual shunt was more frequent at six months with CPFO, but was similar to APFO at later follow-up.