CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Bifurcation Stenting

Abstract

Recommended Article

Classification and treatment of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: putting the Medina classification to the test Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, part I: implanting the first stent in the provisional pathway. The 16th expert consensus document of the European Bifurcation Club Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation coronary lesions: the 15th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Bench testing and coronary artery bifurcations: a consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Two-Year Outcomes and Predictors of Target Lesion Revascularization for Non-Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Following Two-Stent Strategy With 2nd-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents Feasibility and efficacy of the ultrashort side branch dedicated balloon in coronary bifurcation stenting Optimal Strategy for Provisional Side Branch Intervention in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: 3-Year Outcomes of the SMART-STRATEGY Randomized Trial Clinical Outcome of Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: The 5-Year Follow-Up Results From a Randomized and Multicenter DKCRUSH-II Study (Randomized Study on Double Kissing Crush Technique Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions)
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>|

Original Research2020 Jun 12;16(2):e173-e180.

JOURNAL：Eurointervention. Article Link

Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure

C Kleinecke, M Fuerholz, E Buffle et al. Keywords: left atrial appendage closure; LAAC; TSP or PFO/ASD access; outcome

ABSTRACT

AIMS - The aim of this study was to compare the periprocedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER devices by access through transseptal puncture (TSP) versus a patent foramen ovale (PFO) or an atrial septal defect (ASD).


METHODS AND RESULTS - Between 2009 and 2018, 578 consecutive patients underwent LAAC via TSP or PFO/ASD access in three centres. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 246 (TSP) versus 91 (PFO/ASD) patients were compared using the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death and the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleedings at follow-up. Mean age was 75.2±8.7 (TSP) vs 74.4±10.9 (PFO/ASD) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5±1.6 vs 4.3±1.4 and HAS-BLED score 3.3±1.0 vs 3.3±0.9. Device success (97.6% vs 97.8%, p=0.90) was similar. After 2.5±1.4 vs 2.6±1.6 years, clinical efficacy (46/603, 7.6% [TSP] vs 21/233, 9.0% [PFO/ASD], hazard ratio [HR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.85, p=0.54) and safety (24/603, 4.0% vs 11/233, 4.7%; HR 1.4; 95% CI: 0.52-3.6, p=0.49) did not differ.


CONCLUSIONS - Use of a PFO/ASD access for LAAC with AMPLATZER devices offers similar periprocedural and late clinical outcomes to TSP. Simultaneous PFO/ASD closure for an additional protective benefit does not increase risk.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top