Implantation of a Single Chamber Pacemaker in Patients with Triple Mechanical Valve Prosthesis: Utilization of Coronary Sinus Distal Branches to Stimulate the Left Ventricle

2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIO CURNIS ◽  
GIOSUE MASCIOLI ◽  
FEDERICO BIANCHETTI ◽  
LUCA BONTEMPI ◽  
RENATO MARCONI ◽  
...  
Heart ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
K M McGarry ◽  
J Stark ◽  
F J Macartney

2021 ◽  
pp. 152660282110025
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Konstantinou ◽  
Sven Peterss ◽  
Jan Stana ◽  
Barbara Rantner ◽  
Ramin Banafsche ◽  
...  

Purpose To present a novel technique to successfully cross a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis. Technique A 55-year-old female patient with genetically verified Marfan syndrome presented with a 5-cm anastomotic aneurysm of the proximal aortic arch after previous ascending aortic replacement due to a type A aortic dissection in 2007. The patient also underwent mechanical aortic valve replacement in 1991. A 3-stage hybrid repair was planned. The first 2 steps included debranching of the supra-aortic vessels. In the third procedure, a custom-made double branched endovascular stent-graft with a short 35-mm introducer tip was implanted. The mechanical valve was passed with the tip of the dilator on the lateral site of the leaflet, without destructing the valve and with only mild symptoms of aortic insufficiency, as one leaflet continued to work. This allowed the implantation of the stent-graft directly distally of the coronary arteries. Postoperative computed tomography angiography showed no endoleaks and patent coronary and supra-aortic vessels. Conclusion Passing a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis at the proper position is feasible and allows adequate endovascular treatment in complex arch anatomy. However, caution should be taken during positioning of the endovascular graft as the tip may potentially damage the valve prosthesis.


Author(s):  
Laure Bryssinck ◽  
Siel De Vlieger ◽  
Katrien François ◽  
Thierry Bové

Abstract OBJECTIVES Our goal was to examine post hoc patient satisfaction and the decision-making process of choosing a prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS We surveyed 113 patients who were operated on for AVR at 60–70 years of age, including 74 patients with a mechanical valve (MECH) and 39 with a bioprosthesis (BIO). The study focused on quality of life and the decision pathway in relation to prosthesis choice and valve-related complications. Decisional conflict was defined as the post hoc uncertainty perceived by patients regarding their choice of prosthesis. RESULTS The survey was performed at a median of 5.2 (3.2–8.1) years after the AVR. Patients with a biological valve were older (BIO: 68.4 years [66.2–69.4] vs MECH: 63.9 [61.9–66.7]; P < 0.001). Global post hoc satisfaction with prosthesis choice was high in both groups (MECH: 95.9%; BIO: 100%), and 85.1% (MECH) and 92.3% (BIO) of them would repeat their choice. Conflict about their decision was equal (MECH: 30.3%; BIO: 32.6%) for different reasons: MECH patients experienced more anticoagulation-related inconvenience (25.9% vs 0%), fear of bleeding (31.1% vs 0%) and prosthesis noise (26.2% vs 0%), whereas more BIO patients feared prosthesis failure (39.7% vs 17.4%) or reoperation (43.5% vs 18.1%). Active involvement in the decision (odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.85; P = 0.029) and adequate information about the prosthesis (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.14–0.86; P = 0.020) decreased the risk of conflict about the decision. CONCLUSIONS Although 30% of the responders showed a decisional conflict related to prosthesis-specific interferences, global patient satisfaction with the prosthesis choice for AVR is excellent. Increasing the patient’s involvement in the prosthesis choice through shared accountability and improved information is recommended to decrease the choice-related uncertainty.


2010 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 1402-1409 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Matthew Toole ◽  
Martha R. Stroud ◽  
John M. Kratz ◽  
Arthur J. Crumbley ◽  
Scott M. Bradley ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. E99-E102
Author(s):  
Zachary M. Gertz ◽  
Jose-Luis E. Velazquez-Cecena ◽  
John. V. Ian Nixon

EP Europace ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (suppl_3) ◽  
pp. iii211-iii212
Author(s):  
B. Papelbaum ◽  
SS. Galvao Filho ◽  
JT. Medeiros De Vasconcelos ◽  
C. Eduardo Duarte ◽  
R. Castro Galvao ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 612.e9-612.e10
Author(s):  
Kiyotaka Watanabe ◽  
Kozo Hoshino ◽  
Kaoru Dohi ◽  
Naritatsu Saito ◽  
Takafumi Hashimoto ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 137 (3) ◽  
pp. 762-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
José M. Bernal ◽  
Francisco Gutiérrez ◽  
M. Carmen Fariñas ◽  
Elena Arnaiz ◽  
Carmen Diago ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
AlaaS Algazzar ◽  
MohamedA Moharram ◽  
AzzaA Katta ◽  
GhadaM Soltan ◽  
WalaaF Abd Elaziz

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (sup1) ◽  
pp. 68-70
Author(s):  
Ulrich Steinseifer ◽  
Christoph Schmitz ◽  
Matthias Menne

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document