7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Intracardiac Echocardiography and Transesophageal Echocardiography for Image Guidance in Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Objectives: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance is the current gold standard for catheter-based procedures in the treatment of structural heart diseases. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), which can be performed under local anesthesia, has been recently introduced and is becoming more widely used. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICE and TEE in patent foramen ovale (PFO) device closure. Materials and Methods: All 74 patients with a history of cryptogenic stroke undergoing PFO closure for secondary prophylaxis were selected from our registry. Intraprocedural TEE was performed by echocardiographer-cardiologists with the patient under general anesthesia. Conversely, ICE was performed with the patient under local anesthesia. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and immediate outcomes were compared between the TEE and ICE groups ( n = 49 and n = 25, respectively). Results: Although patients in the ICE group were older (47 ± 10 vs. 57 ± 7 years, p < 0.001), sex and comorbidity variables were similar between the two groups. The degree of inducible right-to-left shunt via the PFO, assessed using preprocedural TEE, was also comparable. Notably, fluoroscopy time (22 ± 18 vs. 16 ± 7 min, p = 0.030), radiation dose (498 ± 880 vs. 196 ± 111 mGy, p = 0.022), and total procedural time in the catheter laboratory (99 ± 30 vs. 67 ± 12 min, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the ICE group than those in the TEE group. The entire hospital stay was similar between groups (3.8 ± 2.2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.433). No procedural complications, such as device embolization, pericardial hemorrhage, major bleeding, mortality, or access-related vascular injury were reported in either group. Conclusions: ICE-guided PFO device closure is quicker and less hazardous in terms of radiation exposure than the TEE-guided procedure, with similar procedural outcomes and duration of hospital stay.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulation vs. Antiplatelets after Stroke

          Trials of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to prevent recurrent stroke have been inconclusive. We investigated whether patients with cryptogenic stroke and echocardiographic features representing risk of stroke would benefit from PFO closure or anticoagulation, as compared with antiplatelet therapy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Antiplatelet Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke

            The efficacy of closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) in the prevention of recurrent stroke after cryptogenic stroke is uncertain. We investigated the effect of PFO closure combined with antiplatelet therapy versus antiplatelet therapy alone on the risks of recurrent stroke and new brain infarctions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Long-Term Outcomes of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Medical Therapy after Stroke

              Whether closure of a patent foramen ovale reduces the risk of recurrence of ischemic stroke in patients who have had a cryptogenic ischemic stroke is unknown.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicina (Kaunas)
                medicina
                Medicina
                MDPI
                1010-660X
                1648-9144
                09 August 2020
                August 2020
                : 56
                : 8
                : 401
                Affiliations
                Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon 21927, Korea; jeff76@ 123456gilhospital.com (J.M.); pyj0222@ 123456gilhospital.com (Y.P.); image4631@ 123456gilhospital.com (S.J.P.); likemed@ 123456gilhospital.com (P.C.O.); cardio_gil@ 123456gilhospital.com (A.Y.J.); heart@ 123456gilhospital.com (W.-J.C.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: kangwch@ 123456gilhospital.com ; Tel.: +82-32-460-3054 (ext. 8305); Fax: +82-32-469-1906
                [†]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6431-2802
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9902-3178
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8802-268X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4590-7178
                Article
                medicina-56-00401
                10.3390/medicina56080401
                7466370
                32784843
                9ffd5fea-e358-43a4-a523-8fe327094c26
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 26 June 2020
                : 05 August 2020
                Categories
                Article

                patent foramen ovale,intracardiac echocardiography,transesophageal echocardiography.

                Comments

                Comment on this article