Literature DB >> 26988955

Procedural Success and Adverse Events in Pulmonary Artery Stenting: Insights From the NCDR.

Matthew J Lewis1, Kevin F Kennedy2, Jonathan Ginns3, Matthew A Crystal4, Alejandro Torres4, Julie Vincent4, Marlon S Rosenbaum3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Risk factors associated with outcomes for pulmonary artery (PA) stenting remain poorly defined.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the effect of patient and procedural characteristics on rates of adverse events and procedural success.
METHODS: Registry data were collected, and 2 definitions of procedural success were pre-specified for patients with biventricular circulation: 1) 20% reduction in right ventricular pressure or 50% increase in PA diameter; and 2) 25% reduction in right ventricular pressure or 50% decrease in PA gradient or post-procedure ratio of in-stent minimum to pre-stent distal diameter >80%. A separate definition of procedural success based on normalization of PA diameter was pre-specified for patients with single ventricle palliation.
RESULTS: Between January 2011 and January 2014, a total of 1,183 PA stenting procedures were performed at 59 institutions across 1,001 admissions; 262 (22%) procedures were performed in patients with a single ventricle. The rate of procedural success was 76% for definition 1, 86% for definition 2, and 75% for single ventricle patients. In the multivariate analysis, ostial stenosis was significantly associated with procedural success for biventricular patients according to both definitions. The overall complication rate was 14%, with 9% of patients experiencing death or a major adverse event (MAE). According to multivariate analysis, weight <4 kg, having a single ventricle, and emergency status were significantly associated with death or MAEs.
CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, success was >75% across all definitions, and adverse events were relatively common. Biventricular patients with an ostial stenosis had a higher probability of a successful outcome. Patients who had a single ventricle, weight <4 kg, or who underwent an emergency procedure had a higher risk of death or MAE. These findings may help inform patient selection for PA stenting.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiac catheterization; congenital heart disease; pulmonary artery stenosis; success rates

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26988955     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.01.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  5 in total

Review 1.  Congenital pulmonary vascular anomalies.

Authors:  V Vivian Dimas; Jeanne Dillenbeck; Shellie Josephs
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-06

2.  Evaluation of Outcomes Following Pulmonary Artery Stenting in Fibrosing Mediastinitis.

Authors:  John P Welby; Erin A Fender; Tobias Peikert; David R Holmes; Haraldur Bjarnason; Erica M Knavel-Koepsel
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 2.740

3.  Interventions after Arterial Switch: A Single Low Case-Volume Center Experience.

Authors:  Karolis Jonas; Virginijus Jakutis; Rita Sudikienė; Virgilijus Lebetkevičius; Virgilijus Tarutis
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 2.430

4.  Non-invasive MRI Derived Hemodynamic Simulation to Predict Successful vs. Unsuccessful Catheter Interventions for Branch Pulmonary Artery Stenosis: Proof-of-Concept and Experimental Validation in Swine.

Authors:  Ryan Pewowaruk; John Ralphe; Luke Lamers; Alejandro Roldán-Alzate
Journal:  Cardiovasc Eng Technol       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.305

5.  The outcome of percutaneous stent implantation in congenital heart disease: experience of a single institute.

Authors:  Moon Sun Kim; Ja Kyoung Yoon; Seong Ho Kim; Ji Seok Bang; So Ick Jang; Sang Yoon Lee; Eun Young Choi; Su Jin Park; Hye Won Kwon
Journal:  Korean J Pediatr       Date:  2018-06-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.