Notes![what is notes.io? What is notes.io?](/theme/images/whatisnotesio.png)
![]() ![]() Notes - notes.io |
There were no differences regarding baseline characteristics between NATT patients and the others. At a median follow-up of 16 months, 25 patients died. There were no differences between NATT patients and others regarding all-cause mortality (9.1% vs 18.8%, respectively; P=.07) or ischemic stroke (0.0% vs 4.2%, respectively; P=.20). There were 4 episodes of major bleeding, but none occurred in the NATT group, and no device-related thrombosis was seen on computed tomography scan performed within 12 weeks after LAAC.
In highly selected patients at very HBR, discontinuation of any antithrombotic therapy after LAAC appears safe and feasible.
In highly selected patients at very HBR, discontinuation of any antithrombotic therapy after LAAC appears safe and feasible.
A robotic-assisted platform (CorPath System; Corindus Vascular Robotics) is feasible for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) for the treatment of femoropopliteal lesions.
This study was designed to determine the feasibility and safety of robotic PVI for treating femoropopliteal lesions with drug-coated balloon (DCB), and to evaluate the effect of robotic PVI on operator radiation exposure during robotic PVI.
This prospective, single-arm trial enrolled patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease affecting the femoropopliteal artery. The primary outcome measure was clinical success, defined as <50% residual stenosis and the absence of periprocedural device-related serious adverse events. Operator radiation exposure was compared between the robotic cockpit vs the tableside.
This study enrolled 20 patients (age, 65.5 ± 9.9 years; 60% men), with the majority (75%) Rutherford category 3-4. A total of 24 lesions (lesion length, 49.8 ± 37.5 mm) were treated with DCB and 91.7% were located in the superficial femoral artery. Clinical success was 100% and provisional stenting was required in 1 lesion. Fluoroscopy time was 7.3 ± 3.3 minutes and operator radiation exposure was 1.9 ± 2.9 μSv, which was reduced by 96.9 ± 5.0% when compared with the table-side (control) dosimeter (P<.001). There were no adverse events associated with the use of the robotic system.
These data demonstrate the safety and feasibility of using a robotic-assisted platform for treating femoropopliteal lesions with rapid-exchange interventional devices, and show 96.9% reduction in radiation exposure for the primary operator.
These data demonstrate the safety and feasibility of using a robotic-assisted platform for treating femoropopliteal lesions with rapid-exchange interventional devices, and show 96.9% reduction in radiation exposure for the primary operator.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) is an increasingly prevalent treatment in patients who are intermediate or high risk for surgical intervention. In nonagenarian patients undergoing TAVR, symptomatic relief and quality of life (QoL) outcomes have not been well established. This study explores these outcomes in this patient population that has been underrepresented in landmark clinical trials.
All patients who underwent TAVR between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 at Delray Medical Center were included. The 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary (KCCQ-OS) score was used to assess QoL prior to and 30 days following TAVR in two patient groups the nonagenarian group (patients ≥90 years old) and the younger group (patients <90 years old). KCCQ-OS scores were compared between these two groups. Frailty assessment included grip strength, gait speed, and activities of daily living. Zavondemstat solubility dmso Unadjusted and adjusted analyses (baseline KCCQ-OS scorcted with TAVR in nonagenarians.
Limited data exist on current cardiogenic shock (CS) management strategies.
A 48-item open- and closed-ended question survey on the diagnosis and management of CS.
A total of 211 respondents (3.2%) completed the survey, including 64% interventional cardiologists, 14% general cardiologists, 11% advanced heart failure cardiologists, 5% intensivists, 3% cardiothoracic surgeons; the remainder were internists, emergency medicine, and other physicians. Nearly half (45%) reported practicing at sites without advanced heart failure support/resources, with neither durable ventricular assist devices nor heart transplant available; 16% practice at sites without on-site cardiac surgery and 6% do not offer 24/7 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) coverage. The majority (70%) practice in closed intensive care units with multidisciplinary rounding (73%), cardiologists frequently involved in patient care (89%), and involving cardiology-intensivist co-management (41%). Over half (55%) reported use of CS protocols, 6 opportunities for standardization of care.
To compare severe complications related to radial access and those related to femoral access using vascular closure devices for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Femoral artery access is still used for acute myocardial infarction management; studies comparing state-of-the-art radial and femoral techniques are required to minimize bias regarding the outcomes associated with operator preferences.
We performed a randomized study comparing radial access with a compression device and anatomic landmark-guided femoral access with a hemostatic vascular closure device. The severe complication rates related to the access site were assessed until hospital discharge. A meta- analysis including studies with comparable populations reporting severe bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular event rates was performed.
A total of 250 patients were included who underwent PCI between January 2016 and February 2019. Mean age was 61.5 ± 12.2 years, 73.2% were men, and 28.4% had diabetes. There were no differences between groups or in vascular access-related severe complication rates (8.0% for femoral group vs 5.6% for radial group; P=.45). Although radial access was associated with decreased vascular complications related to the access site when compared with the femoral approach (relative risk [RR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.95), the meta-analysis did not show an impact on severe bleeding (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.37-1.46) or severe cardiovascular adverse events (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.30-1.58).
Compliance with femoral artery puncture techniques and routine use of a vascular closure device promoted low severe complication rates.
Compliance with femoral artery puncture techniques and routine use of a vascular closure device promoted low severe complication rates.
Homepage: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/zavondemstat.html
![]() |
Notes is a web-based application for online taking notes. You can take your notes and share with others people. If you like taking long notes, notes.io is designed for you. To date, over 8,000,000,000+ notes created and continuing...
With notes.io;
- * You can take a note from anywhere and any device with internet connection.
- * You can share the notes in social platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, instagram etc.).
- * You can quickly share your contents without website, blog and e-mail.
- * You don't need to create any Account to share a note. As you wish you can use quick, easy and best shortened notes with sms, websites, e-mail, or messaging services (WhatsApp, iMessage, Telegram, Signal).
- * Notes.io has fabulous infrastructure design for a short link and allows you to share the note as an easy and understandable link.
Fast: Notes.io is built for speed and performance. You can take a notes quickly and browse your archive.
Easy: Notes.io doesn’t require installation. Just write and share note!
Short: Notes.io’s url just 8 character. You’ll get shorten link of your note when you want to share. (Ex: notes.io/q )
Free: Notes.io works for 14 years and has been free since the day it was started.
You immediately create your first note and start sharing with the ones you wish. If you want to contact us, you can use the following communication channels;
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/notesio
Instagram: http://instagram.com/notes.io
Facebook: http://facebook.com/notesio
Regards;
Notes.io Team