Percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty of global kidney ischemia improves renal function and blood pressure.

BACKGROUND: Renal artery stenosis (RAS) can lead to hypertension and renal failure. Nevertheless, its treatment by percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty (PTRA) remains controversial. It is unknown, whether patients with global kidney ischemia (GKI), that means patients with bilateral RAS or RAS with a single functioning kidney, may benefit from PTRA or not. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 93 patients with RAS (25 bilateral or single functioning kidney) undergoing PTRA. Patients had refractory hypertension (≥3 medications). Blood pressure, antihypertensive drugs and serum-creatinine were compared pre-/post-intervention and at 1 year's follow-up. RESULTS: At 1 year after PTRA of patients with GKI, systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly reduced compared to patients with unilateral PTRA (systolic: -19.1 ± 10.5 [bilateral] vs. -11.4 ± 12.1 mmHg [unilateral], P < 0.01; diastolic: -10.1 ± 6.8 mmHg vs. -6.3 ± 6.6 mmHg, P < 0.05). The number of antihypertensive drugs was reduced by -0.8 ± 3.0 at 1 year in patients with GKI, while it increased by +0.1 ± 3.5 in the unilateral RAS group (P < 0.001). Furthermore, post-interventional serum-creatinine decreased by -34.6 ± 31.4 µmol/I after of patients with GKI (P < 0.001 vs. baseline). In patients with unilateral PTRA, a non-significant increase in serum-creatinine was observed (+8.3 ± 2 µmol/l). CONCLUSION: PTRA in patients with GKI led to improved blood pressure and renal function. A large, well-designed, randomized clinical trial targeting this population is still needed. The benefit of PTRA should be measured with the risks in each patient individually.

Permanent Pacemaker Lead Insertion Connected to an External Pacemaker Generator for Temporary Pacing After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been demonstrated to be at least equivalent in the short term compared to surgical valve implantation (SAVI). However, Conduction abnormalities are more common after TAVI than SAVI and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation is more common after TAVI with the currently commercially available self-expanding valves than after SAVI. Temporary pacemaker implantation may be associated with inability to ambulate, lead migration or perforation and infection. Depending on the monitoring system, some arrhythmias may not be detected. We examined the feasibility and safety of permanent pacemaker lead implantation connected to an external generator in patients undergoing TAVI at our institution. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients (between April 1st 2014 and April 30th 2016) at a single center without permanent pacemaker at the time of TAVI who underwent implantation of a permanent pacemaker lead after TAVI connected to an external generator. Focus was the examination of feasibility and safety of our aforementioned approach. In addition, data analysis was performed separating patients into two groups depending on whether (group 1) or not (group 2) permanent pacemaker implantation was ultimately needed. RESULTS: Per our institutional protocol, all consecutive 114 patients underwent insertion of a permanent pacemaker lead after TAVI connected to an external generator. There was one pericardial effusion on postoperative day one that may have been related to the left ventricular wire for TAVI valve delivery. However, perforation due to the pacemaker lead cannot be excluded. Specifically, no access site complications, lead dislodgments or infections occurred. All patients were able to ambulate after the procedure without delay. The permanent pacemaker lead remained in place on average for 4.3 days in group 1 (n = 10) and 4.4 days in group 2 (n = 104) (variance of 3.8 and 3.4 days respectively, [minimum/maximum 0/11 days and 1 and 12 days]). Of the ten patients (9%) who required permanent pacemaker implantation, 8 had a complete atrioventricular block and two had tachy-brady arrhythmias in the context of atrial fibrillation. None of the baseline characteristics including baseline conduction abnormalities were predictors for PPI. CONCLUSION: Implantation of a permanent pacemaker lead connected to an external generator is feasible and safe and could be a better option than implantation of a temporary lead connected to an external generator. It may allow earlier ambulation and facilitate monitoring.

A novel carotid device for embolic diversion: lessons learned from a "first in man" trial in patients with atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to investigate a novel device that was developed to direct emboli away from the internal carotid artery to the external carotid artery to prevent embolic stroke while avoiding the necessity for anticoagulation with warfarin. METHODS: A stent-like, self-expandable filter was developed consisting of fine cobalt alloy mesh. After promising preclinical animal testing, the device was implanted into the common carotid artery extending into the external carotid artery in three patients with atrial fibrillation, each of whom were at high-risk for cerebral emboli and were suboptimal candidates for anticoagulation. Follow-up was performed clinically and with carotid duplex ultrasound. RESULTS: The implantation was successful in all three patients. Unrestricted flow through the filter was demonstrated in each patient at 6 months by duplex sonography. However, at 7 months ultrasound demonstrated occlusion of the internal carotid artery filter in one patient, which was subsequently confirmed by angiography. Subtotal filter occlusion occurred in a second patient at 14 months. Neither patient had clinical symptoms. Both internal carotid arteries were successfully recanalized using standard angioplasty techniques without complication. The third patient had completely normal carotid blood flow at 29 months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of a novel device intended to divert emboli away from the internal carotid artery was feasible, but resulted in occlusive neointimal proliferation in two of three patients. These results demonstrate a discrepancy from the findings of preclinical animal studies and human investigation.

[Importance of tilt-table testing compared with Schellong's test for the diagnosis of orthostatic dysregulations/syncopes]. / Stellenwert der Kipptischuntersuchung im Vergleich zum Schellong -- Test bei orthostaseinduzierten Kreislaufdysregulationen/Synkopen.

PURPOSE: The study compares the importance of tilt-table testing and Schellong's test for the diagnosis of syncopes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective clinical trial 100 consecutive patients (45 males, 55 females) were included. The index symptom for inclusion was a former syncope or presyncope in the patients' history. The tilt-table testing procedure was performed according to a modified version of the Westminster protocol. Following this procedure, Schellong's test was performed in 83 of the patients. RESULTS: During tilt-table testing 34 patients suffered from orthostatic dysautonomy with syncope or neuro-cardiogenic syncope. 29 of these symptomatic patients also underwent Schellong's test. However, only four patients showed a borderline positive finding, whereas a clearly positive result was seen in six patients. These patients had shown orthostatic dysautonomies with syncopes during tilt-table testing. No patient suffered from a syncope or presyncope during Schellong's test. CONCLUSION: Schellong's test is suitable as a diagnostic procedure for orthostatic dysregulation only, and tilt-table testing is highly superior for objectification of the diagnosis and differentiation of syncope.

Atrial and ventricular septal defects can safely be closed by percutaneous intervention.

Various transcatheter devices and methods to close congenital heart defects are currently available. Devices have been designed specifically for atrial septal defect (ASD), patent foramen ovale (PFO), and ventricular septal defect (VSD) closure. The trend in interventional treatment of intracardiac shunts shows toward defect-specific systems. The PFO is a tunnel defect requiring occluders that adapt to its length while common ASD strongly vary in their diameter, making a large scale of device sizes indispensable. VSDs are predominantly sealed by coils or tissue-adapted devices like muscular or perimembranous occluders. Since VSDs may occur with an aneurysm (VSA), a multi-perforated septum, an instable myocardial situation (postinfarction) or a high interventricular pressure gradient, closure of these defects is regarded sometimes as complicated. But during the last 30 years (since King and Mills implanted the first double-umbrella occluding system) several studies have proven procedure efficacy and safety of both ASD and VSD closure. This article reviews a large scale of studies and includes our single center data on 1,609 PFO, ASD, and VSD patients.