CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Scientific Library

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Can We Use the Intrinsic Left Ventricular Delay (QLV) to Optimize the Pacing Configuration for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With a Quadripolar Left Ventricular Lead? Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration: Reconciling the Inconsistencies What Is the Optimal Revascularization Strategy for Left Main Coronary Stenosis? Timing of intervention in asymptomatic patients with valvular heart disease High-risk plaque detected on coronary CT angiography predicts acute coronary syndromes independent of significant stenosis in acute chest pain: results from the ROMICAT-II trial The multiple causes and treatments of heart failure: focus on genetic and molecular mechanisms and non-pharmacological interventions Association of loop diuretics use and dose with outcomes in outpatients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies involving 96,959 patients
|<<... 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 ...>>|

Clinical TrialSeptember 2019

JOURNAL：JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

B Faurie, G Souteyrand, the EASY TAVI investigators. Keywords: left-ventricular stimulation; left-ventricular pacing; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Rapid ventricular pacing is necessary to ensure cardiac standstill during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

 

OBJECTIVES - We investigated whether left ventricular (LV)-stimulation via a guidewire reduced procedure duration while maintaining efficacy and safety compared with standard right ventricular (RV)-stimulation.

 

 

METHODS - This is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with a Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences) were allocated to LV- or RV-stimulation. The primary endpoint was procedure duration. Secondary endpoints included efficacy, safety, and cost at 30 days. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02781896).

 

RESULTS - Between May 2017 and May 2018, 307 patients were randomised but 4 were excluded because they did not receive the intended treatment: 303 patients were analysed in the LV- (n=151) or RV-stimulation (n=152) groups. Mean procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LV-stimulation group (48.4±16.9 vs. 55.6±26.9 min, p=0.0013), with a difference of -0.12 (95% CI -0.20 to -0.05) in the log transformed procedure duration (p=0.0012). Effective stimulation was similar in the LV- and RV-stimulation groups: 124 (84.9%) vs. 128 (87.1%), p=0.60. Safety of stimulation was also similar in the LV- and RV-stimulation groups: procedural success occurred in 151 (100%) vs. 151 (99.3%) patients (p=0.99); 30-day MACE-TAVI occurred in 21 (13.9%) vs. 26 (17.1%) patients (p=0.44); fluoroscopy time was lower in the LV-stimulation group (13.48±5.98 vs. 14.60±5.59, p=0.02) as was cost (€18,807±1,318 vs. €19,437±2,318, p=0.001).

 

CONCLUSIONS -  Compared with RV-stimulation, LV-stimulation during TAVI was associated with significantly reduced procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and cost, with similar efficacy and safety.

>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