Comparison of Local Versus General Anesthesia Following Transfemoral Transcatheter Self-Expanding Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry)
Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA) in most US centers. We examined in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent TF-TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis using local anesthesia (LA) or GA. Patients from the T...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of cardiology 2019-02, Vol.123 (3), p.419-425 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 425 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 419 |
container_title | The American journal of cardiology |
container_volume | 123 |
creator | Attizzani, Guilherme F. Patel, Sandeep M. Dangas, George D. Szeto, Wilson Y. Sorajja, Paul Reardon, Michael J. Popma, Jeffrey J. Kodali, Susheel Chenoweth, Sharla Costa, Marco A. |
description | Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA) in most US centers. We examined in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent TF-TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis using local anesthesia (LA) or GA. Patients from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry who underwent TF-TAVR from January 2014 to June 2016 with LA or GA were evaluated. Propensity matching was performed and procedural and clinical outcomes compared up to 30 days. A total of 11,006 patients were included (GA: 8,239 [74.9%] and LA: 2,767 [25.1%]). After propensity matching (n = 1,988 matched sets), device success was similar (94.5% vs 94.6%, p = 0.905). No differences in in-hospital stroke (2.7% vs 2.3%, p = 0.413) or paravalvular regurgitation grade (p = 0.113) were noted. Fewer LA patients were converted to open heart surgery (0.2% vs 0.6%, p = 0.076) or experienced an in-hospital major vascular complication (0.7% vs 1.4%, p = 0.026). Intensive care unit time (40.1 ± 58.4 vs 50.9 ± 72.1 hours, p < 0.001) and postprocedure length of stay (4.1 ± 3.6 vs 5.0 ± 4.5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with LA. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality were lower in the LA cohort compared to the GA cohort ([1.1% vs 2.7%, p < 0.001] and [2.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.001]). In conclusion, in the largest series of self-expanding bioprostheses for TF-TAVR, these propensity-matched cohorts demonstrate that LA is an acceptable alternative to GA with comparable success, lower safety outcomes, complications rates, and in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.10.041 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2155156819</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002914918320563</els_id><sourcerecordid>2155156819</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-9675d220b739ee496e38e0722ede1dac5aa8c05c883c5847edcb50e0467fd8993</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhi0EotvCI4AscWkPWWwnju0TWq3aUmklJFh6tbz2pPUqiYOdtPSteEQcduHQC6fRjL5_ZvT_CL2jZEkJrT_ul6bbWxPdkhEq82xJKvoCLagUqqCKli_RghDCCkUrdYJOU9rnllJev0YnJeFMCCUW6Nc6dIOJPoUehwZvgjUtvoWYpoSvoYeY21UPabyH5A2-Cm0bHn1_h7fR9KmBLszEn8aaDI0Q8Tdom-Ly52B6N5OrEEdv8a1pHwDfdENr-tGMPh88b2LocFY9W3BAt_f5-gBTFif8Fe58GuPTxRv0qjFtgrfHeoa-X11u15-LzZfrm_VqU9hK8rFQteCOMbITpQKoVA2lBCIYAwfUGcuNkZZwK2VpuawEOLvjBEhVi8ZJpcozdH7YO8TwY8oG6M4nC23-HsKUNKOcZzMlndEPz9B9mGKfv8tUzQkTsmaZ4gfKxpBShEYP0XcmPmlK9Byp3utjpHqOdB7nSLPu_XH7tOvA_VP9zTADnw4AZDsePESdrIfegvMR7Khd8P858RtXSLhM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2165027862</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Local Versus General Anesthesia Following Transfemoral Transcatheter Self-Expanding Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry)</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Attizzani, Guilherme F. ; Patel, Sandeep M. ; Dangas, George D. ; Szeto, Wilson Y. ; Sorajja, Paul ; Reardon, Michael J. ; Popma, Jeffrey J. ; Kodali, Susheel ; Chenoweth, Sharla ; Costa, Marco A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Attizzani, Guilherme F. ; Patel, Sandeep M. ; Dangas, George D. ; Szeto, Wilson Y. ; Sorajja, Paul ; Reardon, Michael J. ; Popma, Jeffrey J. ; Kodali, Susheel ; Chenoweth, Sharla ; Costa, Marco A.</creatorcontrib><description>Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA) in most US centers. We examined in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent TF-TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis using local anesthesia (LA) or GA. Patients from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry who underwent TF-TAVR from January 2014 to June 2016 with LA or GA were evaluated. Propensity matching was performed and procedural and clinical outcomes compared up to 30 days. A total of 11,006 patients were included (GA: 8,239 [74.9%] and LA: 2,767 [25.1%]). After propensity matching (n = 1,988 matched sets), device success was similar (94.5% vs 94.6%, p = 0.905). No differences in in-hospital stroke (2.7% vs 2.3%, p = 0.413) or paravalvular regurgitation grade (p = 0.113) were noted. Fewer LA patients were converted to open heart surgery (0.2% vs 0.6%, p = 0.076) or experienced an in-hospital major vascular complication (0.7% vs 1.4%, p = 0.026). Intensive care unit time (40.1 ± 58.4 vs 50.9 ± 72.1 hours, p < 0.001) and postprocedure length of stay (4.1 ± 3.6 vs 5.0 ± 4.5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with LA. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality were lower in the LA cohort compared to the GA cohort ([1.1% vs 2.7%, p < 0.001] and [2.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.001]). In conclusion, in the largest series of self-expanding bioprostheses for TF-TAVR, these propensity-matched cohorts demonstrate that LA is an acceptable alternative to GA with comparable success, lower safety outcomes, complications rates, and in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9149</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1913</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.10.041</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30527797</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Anesthesia ; Aortic valve ; Cardiac arrhythmia ; Cardiovascular disease ; Clinical outcomes ; Complications ; Consortia ; Heart attacks ; Heart surgery ; Hospitals ; Implantation ; Local anesthesia ; Matching ; Mortality ; Patients ; Regurgitation ; Stroke ; Success ; Surgery ; Thoracic surgery ; Transplants & implants ; Vascular surgery</subject><ispartof>The American journal of cardiology, 2019-02, Vol.123 (3), p.419-425</ispartof><rights>2018</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Feb 1, 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-9675d220b739ee496e38e0722ede1dac5aa8c05c883c5847edcb50e0467fd8993</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-9675d220b739ee496e38e0722ede1dac5aa8c05c883c5847edcb50e0467fd8993</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914918320563$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30527797$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Attizzani, Guilherme F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Sandeep M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dangas, George D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szeto, Wilson Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sorajja, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reardon, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Popma, Jeffrey J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kodali, Susheel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chenoweth, Sharla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, Marco A.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Local Versus General Anesthesia Following Transfemoral Transcatheter Self-Expanding Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry)</title><title>The American journal of cardiology</title><addtitle>Am J Cardiol</addtitle><description>Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA) in most US centers. We examined in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent TF-TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis using local anesthesia (LA) or GA. Patients from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry who underwent TF-TAVR from January 2014 to June 2016 with LA or GA were evaluated. Propensity matching was performed and procedural and clinical outcomes compared up to 30 days. A total of 11,006 patients were included (GA: 8,239 [74.9%] and LA: 2,767 [25.1%]). After propensity matching (n = 1,988 matched sets), device success was similar (94.5% vs 94.6%, p = 0.905). No differences in in-hospital stroke (2.7% vs 2.3%, p = 0.413) or paravalvular regurgitation grade (p = 0.113) were noted. Fewer LA patients were converted to open heart surgery (0.2% vs 0.6%, p = 0.076) or experienced an in-hospital major vascular complication (0.7% vs 1.4%, p = 0.026). Intensive care unit time (40.1 ± 58.4 vs 50.9 ± 72.1 hours, p < 0.001) and postprocedure length of stay (4.1 ± 3.6 vs 5.0 ± 4.5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with LA. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality were lower in the LA cohort compared to the GA cohort ([1.1% vs 2.7%, p < 0.001] and [2.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.001]). In conclusion, in the largest series of self-expanding bioprostheses for TF-TAVR, these propensity-matched cohorts demonstrate that LA is an acceptable alternative to GA with comparable success, lower safety outcomes, complications rates, and in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality.</description><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Aortic valve</subject><subject>Cardiac arrhythmia</subject><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Consortia</subject><subject>Heart attacks</subject><subject>Heart surgery</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Implantation</subject><subject>Local anesthesia</subject><subject>Matching</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Regurgitation</subject><subject>Stroke</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Thoracic surgery</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Vascular surgery</subject><issn>0002-9149</issn><issn>1879-1913</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhi0EotvCI4AscWkPWWwnju0TWq3aUmklJFh6tbz2pPUqiYOdtPSteEQcduHQC6fRjL5_ZvT_CL2jZEkJrT_ul6bbWxPdkhEq82xJKvoCLagUqqCKli_RghDCCkUrdYJOU9rnllJev0YnJeFMCCUW6Nc6dIOJPoUehwZvgjUtvoWYpoSvoYeY21UPabyH5A2-Cm0bHn1_h7fR9KmBLszEn8aaDI0Q8Tdom-Ly52B6N5OrEEdv8a1pHwDfdENr-tGMPh88b2LocFY9W3BAt_f5-gBTFif8Fe58GuPTxRv0qjFtgrfHeoa-X11u15-LzZfrm_VqU9hK8rFQteCOMbITpQKoVA2lBCIYAwfUGcuNkZZwK2VpuawEOLvjBEhVi8ZJpcozdH7YO8TwY8oG6M4nC23-HsKUNKOcZzMlndEPz9B9mGKfv8tUzQkTsmaZ4gfKxpBShEYP0XcmPmlK9Byp3utjpHqOdB7nSLPu_XH7tOvA_VP9zTADnw4AZDsePESdrIfegvMR7Khd8P858RtXSLhM</recordid><startdate>20190201</startdate><enddate>20190201</enddate><creator>Attizzani, Guilherme F.</creator><creator>Patel, Sandeep M.</creator><creator>Dangas, George D.</creator><creator>Szeto, Wilson Y.</creator><creator>Sorajja, Paul</creator><creator>Reardon, Michael J.</creator><creator>Popma, Jeffrey J.</creator><creator>Kodali, Susheel</creator><creator>Chenoweth, Sharla</creator><creator>Costa, Marco A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190201</creationdate><title>Comparison of Local Versus General Anesthesia Following Transfemoral Transcatheter Self-Expanding Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry)</title><author>Attizzani, Guilherme F. ; Patel, Sandeep M. ; Dangas, George D. ; Szeto, Wilson Y. ; Sorajja, Paul ; Reardon, Michael J. ; Popma, Jeffrey J. ; Kodali, Susheel ; Chenoweth, Sharla ; Costa, Marco A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-9675d220b739ee496e38e0722ede1dac5aa8c05c883c5847edcb50e0467fd8993</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Aortic valve</topic><topic>Cardiac arrhythmia</topic><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Consortia</topic><topic>Heart attacks</topic><topic>Heart surgery</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Implantation</topic><topic>Local anesthesia</topic><topic>Matching</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Regurgitation</topic><topic>Stroke</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Thoracic surgery</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Vascular surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Attizzani, Guilherme F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Sandeep M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dangas, George D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szeto, Wilson Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sorajja, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reardon, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Popma, Jeffrey J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kodali, Susheel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chenoweth, Sharla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, Marco A.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Attizzani, Guilherme F.</au><au>Patel, Sandeep M.</au><au>Dangas, George D.</au><au>Szeto, Wilson Y.</au><au>Sorajja, Paul</au><au>Reardon, Michael J.</au><au>Popma, Jeffrey J.</au><au>Kodali, Susheel</au><au>Chenoweth, Sharla</au><au>Costa, Marco A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Local Versus General Anesthesia Following Transfemoral Transcatheter Self-Expanding Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry)</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Cardiol</addtitle><date>2019-02-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>123</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>419</spage><epage>425</epage><pages>419-425</pages><issn>0002-9149</issn><eissn>1879-1913</eissn><abstract>Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA) in most US centers. We examined in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent TF-TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis using local anesthesia (LA) or GA. Patients from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry who underwent TF-TAVR from January 2014 to June 2016 with LA or GA were evaluated. Propensity matching was performed and procedural and clinical outcomes compared up to 30 days. A total of 11,006 patients were included (GA: 8,239 [74.9%] and LA: 2,767 [25.1%]). After propensity matching (n = 1,988 matched sets), device success was similar (94.5% vs 94.6%, p = 0.905). No differences in in-hospital stroke (2.7% vs 2.3%, p = 0.413) or paravalvular regurgitation grade (p = 0.113) were noted. Fewer LA patients were converted to open heart surgery (0.2% vs 0.6%, p = 0.076) or experienced an in-hospital major vascular complication (0.7% vs 1.4%, p = 0.026). Intensive care unit time (40.1 ± 58.4 vs 50.9 ± 72.1 hours, p < 0.001) and postprocedure length of stay (4.1 ± 3.6 vs 5.0 ± 4.5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with LA. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality were lower in the LA cohort compared to the GA cohort ([1.1% vs 2.7%, p < 0.001] and [2.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.001]). In conclusion, in the largest series of self-expanding bioprostheses for TF-TAVR, these propensity-matched cohorts demonstrate that LA is an acceptable alternative to GA with comparable success, lower safety outcomes, complications rates, and in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>30527797</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.10.041</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9149 |
ispartof | The American journal of cardiology, 2019-02, Vol.123 (3), p.419-425 |
issn | 0002-9149 1879-1913 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2155156819 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Anesthesia Aortic valve Cardiac arrhythmia Cardiovascular disease Clinical outcomes Complications Consortia Heart attacks Heart surgery Hospitals Implantation Local anesthesia Matching Mortality Patients Regurgitation Stroke Success Surgery Thoracic surgery Transplants & implants Vascular surgery |
title | Comparison of Local Versus General Anesthesia Following Transfemoral Transcatheter Self-Expanding Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry) |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T10%3A29%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Local%20Versus%20General%20Anesthesia%20Following%20Transfemoral%20Transcatheter%20Self-Expanding%20Aortic%20Valve%20Implantation%20(from%20the%20Transcatheter%20Valve%20Therapeutics%20Registry)&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20cardiology&rft.au=Attizzani,%20Guilherme%20F.&rft.date=2019-02-01&rft.volume=123&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=419&rft.epage=425&rft.pages=419-425&rft.issn=0002-9149&rft.eissn=1879-1913&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.10.041&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2155156819%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2165027862&rft_id=info:pmid/30527797&rft_els_id=S0002914918320563&rfr_iscdi=true |