GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, Wiley, Vol. 100, No. 5 ( 2022-11), p. 801-809
    Abstract: The present article aims to compare a novel sizing chart based on both maximum and minimum diameters (novel MATRIX) with the current sizing recommendation instructions for use (IFU) based on the maximum diameter. Background Current IFU with the Amulet device are still based on the maximum left atrial appendage (LAA) diameter, which might lead to inappropriate oversizing, especially in elliptic appendages. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LAA occlusion in two high‐volume centers. Two hundred patients were included (100 patients with baseline cardiac computed tomography angiography [CCTA] and 100 with baseline 2D and 3D‐transesophageal echocardiography [TEE] ). The degree of concordance between the predicted device size recommendation and the actual device selection was the primary outcome. Results The novel MATRIX showed a higher level of concordance between the predicted and implanted device size, regardless of imaging modalities. CCTA showed the strongest, and 2D‐TEE the weakest concordance between the predicted and implanted device for both MATRIX and IFU charts. The percentage of patients in whom the disagreement among the predicted and implanted device represented 〉 1 size was higher when using the IFU chart. In elliptical LAA anatomies, the differences favoring the use of MATRIX compared to the IFU in terms of predicted/implanted agreement were higher. Finally, no significant differences in clinical or imaging endpoints were observed between the two different sizing charts. Conclusions Incorporating both the LAA maximum and minimum diameters, as opposed to just maximum diameter, appears to improve sizing accuracy. The proposed MATRIX sizing chart offered a higher level of concordance between predicted and implanted device compared to the current IFU.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1522-1946 , 1522-726X
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2001555-0
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 12, No. Supplement_1 ( 2023-05-03)
    Abstract: Type of funding sources: None. Background Aadverse left ventricle remodeling’s natural evolution without proper therapy leads to low left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and high morbidity and mortality. LVEF evolution after discharge in patients with de novo LV dysfunction (≤40%) detected during an intensive cardiac care unit (ICCU) hospitalization is not well known. Purpose To characterize LVEF evolution after discharge in patient with de novo LV dysfunction (≤40%) detected during an Intensive Cardiac Care Unit (ICCU) admission according to etiology: ischemic etiology (IE)Vs non-ischemic etiology (NIE). Methods We retrospectively analyzed clinical, echocardiographyc, pharmacological and coronary angiography -related variables from 154 consecutive patients admitted from May 2020 to July 2022 in the ICCU of a tertiary hospital and whose LVEF at discharge was ≤40%. Patients were grouped according to LV dysfunction etiology in ischemic and non-ischemic. LVEF at follow-up was registered when available. Results This cohort had a mean age of 64.8 ±14 years and 127 (82%) were male. Mean left ventricle ejection fraction was 30 ±6.8%. Among them, 119 (77%) had ischemic etiology (IE) and 35 (23%) non-Ischemic (NIE). Inotropes during admission were required in 29 (19%) and 151 (98%) were studied with coronary angiography. 70 (46%) were also studied with MRI during hospitalization; 35 (23%) had right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) and 39 (25%) had any kind of bundle branch block at discharge’s EKG. At discharge, 121 (78%) received betablockers (BB), 69 (45%) received Angiotensin Converser Enzyme Inhibitor (ACEI), 17 (11%) received Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB), 24 (16%) received sacubitril-valsartan (ARNI), 88 (57%) received Mineralcorticoid Receptor Antagonist (ARM) and 39 (25%) received Sodium-Glucos type-2 inhibitors. At discharge, LVEF in patients with IE was 31 ±6% and 27 ±8% in NIE (p=0,01). Follow-up echocardiography was available in 119 (77%) of them. Mean last available follow-up LVEF was 46% ±11 in NIE while among IE was 40% ±11 (p=0,02). LVEF increase was of 17±11% in NIE and 9±9% in IE (p=0,0004). Among all, 36 patients normalized LVEF, 14 (50%) in NIE group and 22 (25%) in IE (P=0.01). In a multiple linear regression model adjusting by age, sex, QRS duration, left bundle branch block, TRC implantation and modifying-disease drugs, NIE etiology was independently associated with a 7,6% increase in LVEF compared to IE (p=0,003). Conclusions Our findings support that LVEF improvement after admission to ICCU with de novo LV dysfunction is strongly dependent on etiology. Patients with NIE tend to have an initial worse LVEF but greater improvement at follow-up.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2048-8726 , 2048-8734
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2663340-1
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...