Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv ; 17(7): e013739, 2024 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38973456

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: While transradial access is favored for cardiac catheterization, the radial artery (RA) is increasingly preferred for coronary artery bypass grafting. Whether the RA is suitable for use as a graft following instrumentation for transradial access remains uncertain. METHODS: Consecutive patients from 2015 to 2019 who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using both the left and right RAs as grafts were included. Instrumented RAs underwent careful preoperative assessment for suitability. The clinical analysis was stratified by whether patients received an instrumented RA graft (instrumented versus noninstrumented groups). Eligible patients with both instrumented and noninstrumented RAs underwent computed tomography coronary angiography to evaluate graft patency. The primary outcome was a within-patient paired analysis of graft patency comparing instrumented to noninstrumented RA grafts. RESULTS: Of the 1123 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, 294 had both the left and right RAs used as grafts and were included. There were 126 and 168 patients in the instrumented and noninstrumented groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were comparable. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years following coronary artery bypass grafting was 2.4% in the instrumented group and 5.4% in the noninstrumented group (hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.12-1.61]; P=0.19). There were 50 patients included in the graft patency analysis. At a median follow-up of 4.3 (interquartile range, 3.7-4.5) years, 40/50 (80%) instrumented and 41/50 (82%) noninstrumented grafts were patent (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.29-2.52]; P>0.99). No significant differences were observed in the luminal diameter or cross-sectional area of the instrumented and noninstrumented RA grafts. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence found in this study that RA graft patency was affected by prior transradial access, and the use of an instrumented RA was not associated with worse outcomes in the exploratory clinical analysis. Although conduits must be carefully selected, prior transradial access should not be considered an absolute contraindication to the use of the RA as a bypass graft. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12621000257864.


Assuntos
Cateterismo Cardíaco , Angiografia Coronária , Ponte de Artéria Coronária , Doença da Artéria Coronariana , Oclusão de Enxerto Vascular , Artéria Radial , Grau de Desobstrução Vascular , Humanos , Artéria Radial/diagnóstico por imagem , Artéria Radial/transplante , Artéria Radial/fisiopatologia , Masculino , Feminino , Ponte de Artéria Coronária/efeitos adversos , Idoso , Cateterismo Cardíaco/efeitos adversos , Cateterismo Cardíaco/instrumentação , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Resultado do Tratamento , Oclusão de Enxerto Vascular/etiologia , Oclusão de Enxerto Vascular/fisiopatologia , Oclusão de Enxerto Vascular/diagnóstico por imagem , Fatores de Tempo , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/diagnóstico por imagem , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/fisiopatologia , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/terapia , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/cirurgia , Fatores de Risco , Estudos Retrospectivos , Cateterismo Periférico/efeitos adversos , Punções , Medição de Risco
2.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol ; 34(6): 1345-1347, 2023 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37146217

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated time efficiency and patient satisfaction of a "car park clinic" (CPC) compared to traditional face-to-face (F2F) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Consecutive patients attending CPC between September 2020 and November 2021 were surveyed. CPC time was recorded by staff. F2F time was reported by patients and administrative data. RESULTS: A total of 591 patients attended the CPC. A total of 176 responses were collected for F2F clinic. Regarding satisfaction, 90% of CPC patients responded "happy" or "very happy." 96% reported feeling "safe" or "very safe." Patients spent significantly less time in CPC compared to F2F (17 ± 8 vs. 50 ± 24 min, p < .001). CONCLUSION: CPC had excellent patient satisfaction and superior time efficiency compared to F2F.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Desfibriladores Implantáveis , Humanos , Satisfação do Paciente , Pandemias , Inquéritos e Questionários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...