CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

经皮左心耳封堵

Abstract

Recommended Article

Initial Worldwide Experience With the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation 2015 ACC/HRS/SCAI Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Device Societal Overview 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee Gut microbiota dysbiosis promotes age-related atrial fibrillation by lipopolysaccharide and glucose-induced activation of NLRP3-inflammasome Does pulsed field ablation regress over time? A quantitative temporal analysis of pulmonary vein isolation Detection of Device-Related Thrombosis Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion A Comparison Between Cardiac Computed Tomography and Transesophageal Echocardiography​: A Comparison Between Cardiac Computed Tomography and Transesophageal Echocardiography Alcohol consumption, cardiac biomarkers, and risk of atrial fibrillation and adverse outcomes Single direct oral anticoagulant therapy in stable patients with atrial fibrillation beyond 1 year after coronary stent implantation
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 >>|

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