Suppr超能文献

一项随机试验中三种卵圆孔未闭封堵装置的比较(Amplatzer封堵器与CardioSEAL-STARflex封堵器与Helex封堵器)

Comparison of three patent foramen ovale closure devices in a randomized trial (Amplatzer versus CardioSEAL-STARflex versus Helex occluder).

作者信息

Taaffe Margaret, Fischer Evelyn, Baranowski Andreas, Majunke Nicolas, Heinisch Corinna, Leetz Michaela, Hein Ralph, Bayard Yves, Büscheck Franziska, Reschke Madlen, Hoffmann Ilona, Wunderlich Nina, Wilson Neil, Sievert Horst

机构信息

CardioVascular Center, Frankfurt, Germany.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 2008 May 1;101(9):1353-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.12.040. Epub 2008 Mar 10.

Abstract

This randomized trial compared procedural complications and 30-day clinical outcomes of 3 patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices (Amplatzer, Helex, and CardioSEAL-STARflex). It examined 660 patients (361 men, 299 women, mean age 49.3+/-1.9 years), with 220 patients per group. All patients had a history of paradoxical embolism. All PFO closures were successful technically. Exchange of devices for others was most frequently required for the Helex occluder (7 of 220) and 2 of 220 in either of the other groups. Three device embolizations in the Helex group were retrieved and replaced successfully. One patient with a Helex occluder developed a transient ischemic attack and recovered without treatment. A hemopericardium in that group was punctured without affecting the device. One tamponade in the Amplatzer group required surgical device explantation. In 8 of 660 patients in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, thrombi resolved after anticoagulation. Sixteen patients (11 in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, 3 in the Amplatzer group, and 2 in the Helex group) had episodes of atrial fibrillation. PFOs were closed completely in 143 of 220 patients (65%) in the Amplatzer group, 116 of 220 patients (52.7%) in the Helex group, and 137 of 220 patients (62.3%) in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group at 30 days with significant differences between the Helex and Amplatzer occluders (p=0.0005) and the Helex and CardioSEAL-STARflex occluders (p=0.0003). PFO closure can be performed safely with each device. In conclusion, the Helex occluder embolized more frequently. Device thrombus formation and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were more common with the CardioSEAL-STARflex occluder.

摘要

这项随机试验比较了3种卵圆孔未闭(PFO)封堵装置(Amplatzer、Helex和CardioSEAL-STARflex)的手术并发症和30天临床结局。该试验纳入了660例患者(361例男性,299例女性,平均年龄49.3±1.9岁),每组220例。所有患者均有反常栓塞病史。所有PFO封堵在技术上均获成功。Helex封堵器最常需要更换为其他装置(220例中有7例),其他两组中每组220例中有2例需要更换。Helex组有3例装置栓塞被成功取出并更换。1例使用Helex封堵器的患者发生短暂性脑缺血发作,未经治疗即康复。该组1例心包积血被穿刺,未影响装置。Amplatzer组有1例心脏压塞需要手术取出装置。CardioSEAL-STARflex组660例患者中有8例血栓在抗凝后溶解。16例患者(CardioSEAL-STARflex组11例、Amplatzer组3例、Helex组2例)发生房颤。30天时,Amplatzer组220例患者中有143例(65%)PFO完全闭合,Helex组220例患者中有116例(52.7%),CardioSEAL-STARflex组220例患者中有137例(62.3%),Helex与Amplatzer封堵器之间(p=0.0005)以及Helex与CardioSEAL-STARflex封堵器之间(p=0.0003)存在显著差异。使用每种装置均可安全地进行PFO封堵。总之,Helex封堵器栓塞更频繁。CardioSEAL-STARflex封堵器发生装置血栓形成和阵发性房颤更常见。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验