Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Periprocedural Complications (periprocedural + complications)
Selected AbstractsSymptomatic stenosis of the vertebrobasilar arteries: results of extra- and intracranial stent-PTAEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, Issue 1 2009T. Seifert Background and purpose:, About half of all transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) or strokes in the posterior circulation are caused by the arterial stenosis. The purposes of this study were to determine the safety of stent-assisted percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (stent-PTA) and its efficacy for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with symptomatic artery stenosis in the extra- and intracranial posterior circulation. Methods:, Forty-six patients with a previous stroke or TIA who received balloon-mounted coronary stents for vertebral artery origin stenosis (VAOS; 29 patients) or self-expanding nitinol stents for vertebrobasilar intracranial stenosis (VBIS; 17 patients) were followed-up for a mean of 24.1 (VAOS) and 12.7 (VBIS) months. Results:, When all cause morbidity/mortality within 30 days from stent-PTA and stroke or death from stroke in the treated vascular territory during the first 12 months of follow-up are combined, the incidence of periprocedural complications and disease progression for the first year is 10.3% in VAOS patients and 17.6% in the VBIS group. Vessel restenosis ,50% was found in 52.0% of VAOS and in 32.1% of VBIS patients who completed 6 months follow-up. Conclusions:, We observed a higher periprocedural complication rate for patients with VBIS and a higher rate of restenosis in VAOS patients after stent-PTA for symptomatic artery stenosis. [source] Efficacy of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents as Compared to Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Saphenous Vein Graft InterventionJOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY, Issue 2 2006Ph.D., WILLIAM W. CHU M.D. Background: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is associated with a significantly increased rate of periprocedural complications and late clinical and angiographic restenosis. In the contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) era, the comparison of the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in SVG interventions is currently unknown. We conducted this retrospective analysis to investigate this issue. Methods and Results: Forty-seven patients with 50 SVG lesions who underwent standard percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SES (SES group) were compared with 42 patients with 45 SVG lesions with PES (PES group). All patients received distal protection devices (DPDs) during the interventions. The in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month clinical outcomes in both groups were compared. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced between both groups except for the proximal and mid lesions. There were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions (MIs) during the index hospitalization. Non-Q-wave MI was similar between the two groups (SES vs PES, 4.3% vs 7.1%, P = 0.55). At 30-day and 6-month follow-ups, all the clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. There was no subacute thrombosis (SAT) or late thrombosis in either group. The event-free survival at 6 months was also similar between both groups (P = 0.75). Conclusions: The use of DES in patients undergoing SVG intervention with a DPD is clinically safe and feasible. As compared to SES, PES have the same efficacy and clinical outcomes in SVG interventions up to 6 months. [source] Perforation of Aortic Root as Secondary Complication after Implantation of Patent Foramen Ovale Occlusion Device in a 31-Year-Old WomanJOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY, Issue 2 2006STEFAN A. LANGE M.D. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) revealed a 3-mm-large patent foramen ovale (PFO). No other reason for these neurological events could be found and the patient underwent percutaneous closure of the PFO with a CARDIA® Star 03/30 device without periprocedural complications. Four weeks later, the patient underwent a routine control of device without any adverse clinical symptoms. Surprisingly, echocardiography revealed a perforation of the aortic root by an umbrella strut with a small shunt from the aortic root to the right atrium. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirmed the diagnosis of device malposition. Consecutively, the patient underwent minimal invasive surgery. After removal of the single perforating strut, the bleeding lesion was closed. The patient remained free of any additional complications during the postoperative course and up until now has had uneventful follow-ups. [source] Guidelines for patient selection and performance of carotid artery stentingANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, Issue 6 2010The Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee Abstract Background:, The endovascular treatment of carotid atherosclerosis with carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains controversial. Carotid endarterectomy remains the benchmark in terms of procedural mortality and morbidity. At present, there are no consensus Australasian guidelines for the safe performance of CAS. Methods:, We applied a modified Delphi consensus method of iterative consultation between the College representatives on the Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee (CSGC). Results:, Selection of patients suitable for CAS needs careful consideration of clinical and patho-anatomical criteria and cannot be directly extrapolated from clinical indicators for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Randomized controlled trials (including pooled analyses of results) comparing CAS with CEA for treatment of symptomatic stenosis have demonstrated that CAS is more hazardous than CEA. On current evidence, the CGSC therefore recommends that CAS should not be performed in the majority of patients requiring carotid revascularisation. The evidence for CAS in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis who are considered medically high risk is weak, and there is currently no evidence to support CAS as a treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The use of distal protection devices during CAS remains controversial with increased risk of clinically silent stroke. The knowledge requirements for the safe performance of CAS include an understanding of the evidence base from randomized controlled trials, carotid and aortic arch anatomy and pathology, clinical stroke syndromes, the differing treatment options for stroke and carotid atherosclerosis, and recognition and management of periprocedural complications. It is critical that all patients being considered for a carotid intervention have adequate pre-procedural neuro-imaging and an independent, standardized neurological assessment before and after the procedure. Maintenance of proficiency in CAS requires active involvement in surgical/endovascular audit and continuing medical education programs. These standards should apply in the public and private health care settings. Conclusion:, These guidelines represent the consensus of an inter-collegiate committee in order to direct appropriate patient selection and the range of cognitive and technical requirements to perform CAS. Advances in endovascular technologies and the results of randomized controlled trials will guide future revisions of these guidelines. [source] | ||||||||||