Transesophageal echocardiography‐guided versus fluoroscopy‐guided patent foramen ovale closure: A single center registry

Author:

Achim Alexandru123ORCID,Hochegger Paul1,Kanoun Schnur Sadeek S.134,Moser Lisa1,Stark Cosima1,Pranevičius Robertas15,Prunea Dan1,Schmidt Albrecht1,Ablasser Klemens1,Verheyen Nicolas1,Kolesnik Ewald1,Maier Robert1,Luha Olev1,Ruzsa Zoltan3,Zirlik Andreas1,Toth Gabor G.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Cardiology University Heart Center Graz Medical University of Graz Graz Austria

2. “Niculae Stancioiu” Heart Institute University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj‐Napoca Cluj‐Napoca Romania

3. Department of Internal Medicine Invasive Cardiology Division University of Szeged Szeged Hungary

4. South West Peninsula Deanery University Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust Plymouth UK

5. Department of Cardiology Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health and Sciences Vilnius Lithuania

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPercutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) is conventionally performed under continuous transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) guidance. We aimed to evaluate whether a simplified procedural approach, including pure fluoroscopy‐guidance and final TEE control, as well as an aimed ‘next‐day‐discharge’ is comparable with the conventional TEE‐guided procedure in terms of periprocedural and intermediate‐term outcomes.MethodsAll patients who underwent a PFO closure at our center between 2010 and 2022 were retrospectively included. Prior to June 2019 cases were performed with continuous TEE guidance (TEE‐guided group). Since June 2019, only pure fluoroscopy‐guided PFO closures have been performed with TEE insertion and control just prior to device release (fluoroscopy‐guided group). We analyzed procedural aspects, as well as long term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.ResultsIn total 291 patients were included in the analysis: 197 in the TEE‐guided group and 94 in the fluoroscopy‐guided group. Fluoroscopy‐guided procedures were markedly shorter (48 ± 20 min vs. 25 ± 9 min; p < .01). There was no difference in procedural complications, including death, major bleeding, device dislodgement, stroke or clinically relevant peripheral embolization between the two groups (.5% vs. 0%; p = .99). Hospital stay was also shorter with the simplified approach (2.5 ± 1.6 vs. 3.5 ± 1.2 days; p < .01), allowing 85% same‐day discharges during the last 12 months of observation period.At 6 ± 3 months echocardiographic follow‐up a residual leakage was described in 8% of the TEE‐guided cases and 2% of the fluoroscopy‐guided cases (p = .08).ConclusionWhile a complete TEE‐free PFO closure might have potential procedural risks, our approach of pure fluoroscopy‐guided with a brisk final TEE check seems to be advantageous in terms of procedural aspects with no sign of any acute or intermediate‐term hazard and it could offer an equitable compromise between the two worlds: a complete TEE procedure and a procedure without any TEE.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3