Conduction System Injury After Aortic Valve Dilation in the Dog Single- Versus Double-Balloon Catheters

Angiology ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 929-935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond H. Plack ◽  
Grover M. Hutchins ◽  
Jeffrey A. Brinker
2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (17) ◽  
pp. 1765-1770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elad Mei-Dan ◽  
Asnat Walfisch ◽  
Constanza Valencia ◽  
Mordechai Hallak

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (08) ◽  
pp. 790-797
Author(s):  
Samantha X. de los Reyes ◽  
Jeanne S. Sheffield ◽  
Ahizechukwu C. Eke

Objective To evaluate for difference in outcomes between single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction. Study Design We searched CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, ISI Web of Sciences, LILACs, and Google Scholar and retrieved studies through May 2017. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing single- versus double-balloon catheters. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. Heterogeneity of the results among studies was tested with the quantity I2 . For I2 values ≥50%, a random effects model was used to pool data across studies. Summary measures were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) or as a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Four trials including a total of 682 patients were included: 340 patients were randomized to induction with a single-balloon catheter and 342 to induction with a double-balloon catheter. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to time to delivery (18.8 vs. 19.6 hours; MD: 0.40; 95% CI: –1.56 to 0.76), vaginal delivery rate (65.3 vs. 62.3%; aOR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.56–1.92), cesarean delivery rate (25.6 vs. 27.5%; aOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.55–1.73), or epidural use (58.4 vs. 62%; aOR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56–1.18). Conclusion Double-balloon catheters have no apparent advantage over single-balloon catheters for labor induction.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-Xia Niu ◽  
Xi Liu ◽  
Min Gu ◽  
Xuhua Chen ◽  
Chi Cai ◽  
...  

Introduction: For patients who develop atrioventricular block (AVB) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), right ventricular pacing (RVP) may be associated with adverse outcomes. We assessed the feasibility of conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients who developed AVB following TAVR and compared the procedural and clinical outcomes with RVP.Methods: Consecutive patients who developed AVB following TAVR were prospectively enrolled, and were implanted with RVP or CSP. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared among different pacing modalities.Results: A total of 60 patients were enrolled, including 10 who were implanted with His bundle pacing (HBP), 20 with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and 30 with RVP. The HBP group had significantly lower implant success rate, higher capture threshold, and lower R-wave amplitude than the LBBP and RVP groups (p < 0.01, respectively). The RVP group had a significantly longer paced QRS duration (153.5 ± 6.8 ms, p < 0.01) than the other two groups (HBP: 121.8 ± 8.6 ms; LBBP: 120.2 ± 10.6 ms). During a mean follow-up of 15.0 ± 9.1 months, the LBBP group had significantly higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (54.9 ± 6.7% vs. 48.9 ± 9.1%, p < 0.05) and shorter left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (49.7 ± 5.6 mm vs. 55.0 ± 7.7 mm, p < 0.05) than the RVP group. While the HBP group showed trends of higher LVEF (p = 0.016) and shorter LVEDD (p = 0.017) than the RVP group. Four patients in the RVP group died—three deaths were due to progressive heart failure and one was due to non-cardiac reasons. One death in the LBBP group was due to the non-cardiac reasons.Conclusions: CSP achieved shorter paced QRS duration and better cardiac structure and function in post-TAVR patients than RVP. LBBP had a higher implant success rate and better pacing parameters than HBP.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 649-657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman ◽  
Óscar Cano ◽  
Jacob S. Koruth ◽  
Faiz A. Subzposh ◽  
Sudip Nanda ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document