Patient eligibility for application of a two-filter cerebral embolic protection device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: does one size fit all?

This study sought to determine the percentage of patients potentially eligible for implantation of the Sentinel™ Cerebral Protection System (Sentinel-CPS) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to identify the reasons for treatment exclusion. We retrospectively performed an analys...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery 2020-04, Vol.30 (4), p.605-612
Hauptverfasser: Voss, Stephanie, Schechtl, Johanna, Nöbauer, Christian, Bleiziffer, Sabine, Lange, Rüdiger
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 612
container_issue 4
container_start_page 605
container_title Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery
container_volume 30
creator Voss, Stephanie
Schechtl, Johanna
Nöbauer, Christian
Bleiziffer, Sabine
Lange, Rüdiger
description This study sought to determine the percentage of patients potentially eligible for implantation of the Sentinel™ Cerebral Protection System (Sentinel-CPS) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to identify the reasons for treatment exclusion. We retrospectively performed an analysis of pre-TAVI multislice computed tomography (MSCT) aortograms and data review of all patients undergoing a TAVI procedure in 2017 (n = 317). MSCT evaluation included the assessment of aortic arch anatomy and the vascular dimensions of the brachiocephalic and left common carotid artery. Data analysis focused on comorbid conditions, precluding 6-Fr sheath radial access and filter deployment due to history of previous artery interventions. MSCT and data analysis showed Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients (n = 195). Sentinel-CPS would have been contraindicated in 38.5% (n = 122) due to one or more of the following: (i) measured diameters of the filter-landing zones 15 mm in the brachiocephalic artery and 10 mm in the left common carotid artery (n = 116; 88 with carotid dimensions too small); (ii) significant subclavian artery stenosis (n = 4) or an aberrant subclavian artery (n = 3) precluding Sentinel-CPS implantation and (iii) clinical characteristics including hypersensitivity to nickel-titanium (n = 1), radial artery occlusion (n = 1) or previous left common carotid artery interventions (n = 5). MSCT and clinical data supported Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients. The most common reason for treatment exclusion was inappropriate diameter within the target landing zone of the left carotid artery. Future device development should address this limitation.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/icvts/ivz306
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2333933055</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2333933055</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-edd9aa0731df0a50da36d9e74696cf38d40c055a94e1a4ede63cf69fa18552883</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkU1P3DAQhq2Kqny0t57RHDk04MRJiHup0IovCak9tOdo1h5TIycOtjfV8l_6X_HuAuI0rzTPvDOjl7GvJT8tuRRnVs0pntn5SfD2Azsom1YWsuqavXd6nx3G-MB5Kbngn9i-yKLuKnnA_v_CZGlMQM7e26V1Nq3B-AA4Tc6q3PQjeAMI6Z8vjHWJAigKtAzogIalzxRMwSdSW1bTbBWBXgU73kMKOMbs8pc2c-hDyvSMbiaww-RwTNsN30F7iuBHgmifCIxNgM79-Mw-GnSRvrzUI_bn6vL34qa4-3l9u7i4K5SomlSQ1hKRn4tSG44N1yhaLem8bmWrjOh0zRVvGpQ1lViTplYo00qDZdc0VdeJI3ay882PPK4opn6wUZHLB5Jfxb4SQkghskdGv-1QFXyMgUw_BTtgWPcl7zeB9NtA-l0gGT9-cV4tB9Jv8GsC4hkJMI0t</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2333933055</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patient eligibility for application of a two-filter cerebral embolic protection device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: does one size fit all?</title><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Voss, Stephanie ; Schechtl, Johanna ; Nöbauer, Christian ; Bleiziffer, Sabine ; Lange, Rüdiger</creator><creatorcontrib>Voss, Stephanie ; Schechtl, Johanna ; Nöbauer, Christian ; Bleiziffer, Sabine ; Lange, Rüdiger</creatorcontrib><description>This study sought to determine the percentage of patients potentially eligible for implantation of the Sentinel™ Cerebral Protection System (Sentinel-CPS) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to identify the reasons for treatment exclusion. We retrospectively performed an analysis of pre-TAVI multislice computed tomography (MSCT) aortograms and data review of all patients undergoing a TAVI procedure in 2017 (n = 317). MSCT evaluation included the assessment of aortic arch anatomy and the vascular dimensions of the brachiocephalic and left common carotid artery. Data analysis focused on comorbid conditions, precluding 6-Fr sheath radial access and filter deployment due to history of previous artery interventions. MSCT and data analysis showed Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients (n = 195). Sentinel-CPS would have been contraindicated in 38.5% (n = 122) due to one or more of the following: (i) measured diameters of the filter-landing zones &lt;9 or &gt;15 mm in the brachiocephalic artery and &lt;6.5 or &gt;10 mm in the left common carotid artery (n = 116; 88 with carotid dimensions too small); (ii) significant subclavian artery stenosis (n = 4) or an aberrant subclavian artery (n = 3) precluding Sentinel-CPS implantation and (iii) clinical characteristics including hypersensitivity to nickel-titanium (n = 1), radial artery occlusion (n = 1) or previous left common carotid artery interventions (n = 5). MSCT and clinical data supported Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients. The most common reason for treatment exclusion was inappropriate diameter within the target landing zone of the left carotid artery. Future device development should address this limitation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1569-9285</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1569-9285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivz306</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31904829</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><ispartof>Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2020-04, Vol.30 (4), p.605-612</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-edd9aa0731df0a50da36d9e74696cf38d40c055a94e1a4ede63cf69fa18552883</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-edd9aa0731df0a50da36d9e74696cf38d40c055a94e1a4ede63cf69fa18552883</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8685-532X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31904829$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Voss, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schechtl, Johanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nöbauer, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleiziffer, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lange, Rüdiger</creatorcontrib><title>Patient eligibility for application of a two-filter cerebral embolic protection device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: does one size fit all?</title><title>Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery</title><addtitle>Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg</addtitle><description>This study sought to determine the percentage of patients potentially eligible for implantation of the Sentinel™ Cerebral Protection System (Sentinel-CPS) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to identify the reasons for treatment exclusion. We retrospectively performed an analysis of pre-TAVI multislice computed tomography (MSCT) aortograms and data review of all patients undergoing a TAVI procedure in 2017 (n = 317). MSCT evaluation included the assessment of aortic arch anatomy and the vascular dimensions of the brachiocephalic and left common carotid artery. Data analysis focused on comorbid conditions, precluding 6-Fr sheath radial access and filter deployment due to history of previous artery interventions. MSCT and data analysis showed Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients (n = 195). Sentinel-CPS would have been contraindicated in 38.5% (n = 122) due to one or more of the following: (i) measured diameters of the filter-landing zones &lt;9 or &gt;15 mm in the brachiocephalic artery and &lt;6.5 or &gt;10 mm in the left common carotid artery (n = 116; 88 with carotid dimensions too small); (ii) significant subclavian artery stenosis (n = 4) or an aberrant subclavian artery (n = 3) precluding Sentinel-CPS implantation and (iii) clinical characteristics including hypersensitivity to nickel-titanium (n = 1), radial artery occlusion (n = 1) or previous left common carotid artery interventions (n = 5). MSCT and clinical data supported Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients. The most common reason for treatment exclusion was inappropriate diameter within the target landing zone of the left carotid artery. Future device development should address this limitation.</description><issn>1569-9285</issn><issn>1569-9285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkU1P3DAQhq2Kqny0t57RHDk04MRJiHup0IovCak9tOdo1h5TIycOtjfV8l_6X_HuAuI0rzTPvDOjl7GvJT8tuRRnVs0pntn5SfD2Azsom1YWsuqavXd6nx3G-MB5Kbngn9i-yKLuKnnA_v_CZGlMQM7e26V1Nq3B-AA4Tc6q3PQjeAMI6Z8vjHWJAigKtAzogIalzxRMwSdSW1bTbBWBXgU73kMKOMbs8pc2c-hDyvSMbiaww-RwTNsN30F7iuBHgmifCIxNgM79-Mw-GnSRvrzUI_bn6vL34qa4-3l9u7i4K5SomlSQ1hKRn4tSG44N1yhaLem8bmWrjOh0zRVvGpQ1lViTplYo00qDZdc0VdeJI3ay882PPK4opn6wUZHLB5Jfxb4SQkghskdGv-1QFXyMgUw_BTtgWPcl7zeB9NtA-l0gGT9-cV4tB9Jv8GsC4hkJMI0t</recordid><startdate>20200401</startdate><enddate>20200401</enddate><creator>Voss, Stephanie</creator><creator>Schechtl, Johanna</creator><creator>Nöbauer, Christian</creator><creator>Bleiziffer, Sabine</creator><creator>Lange, Rüdiger</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8685-532X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200401</creationdate><title>Patient eligibility for application of a two-filter cerebral embolic protection device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: does one size fit all?</title><author>Voss, Stephanie ; Schechtl, Johanna ; Nöbauer, Christian ; Bleiziffer, Sabine ; Lange, Rüdiger</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-edd9aa0731df0a50da36d9e74696cf38d40c055a94e1a4ede63cf69fa18552883</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Voss, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schechtl, Johanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nöbauer, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleiziffer, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lange, Rüdiger</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Voss, Stephanie</au><au>Schechtl, Johanna</au><au>Nöbauer, Christian</au><au>Bleiziffer, Sabine</au><au>Lange, Rüdiger</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patient eligibility for application of a two-filter cerebral embolic protection device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: does one size fit all?</atitle><jtitle>Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg</addtitle><date>2020-04-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>605</spage><epage>612</epage><pages>605-612</pages><issn>1569-9285</issn><eissn>1569-9285</eissn><abstract>This study sought to determine the percentage of patients potentially eligible for implantation of the Sentinel™ Cerebral Protection System (Sentinel-CPS) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to identify the reasons for treatment exclusion. We retrospectively performed an analysis of pre-TAVI multislice computed tomography (MSCT) aortograms and data review of all patients undergoing a TAVI procedure in 2017 (n = 317). MSCT evaluation included the assessment of aortic arch anatomy and the vascular dimensions of the brachiocephalic and left common carotid artery. Data analysis focused on comorbid conditions, precluding 6-Fr sheath radial access and filter deployment due to history of previous artery interventions. MSCT and data analysis showed Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients (n = 195). Sentinel-CPS would have been contraindicated in 38.5% (n = 122) due to one or more of the following: (i) measured diameters of the filter-landing zones &lt;9 or &gt;15 mm in the brachiocephalic artery and &lt;6.5 or &gt;10 mm in the left common carotid artery (n = 116; 88 with carotid dimensions too small); (ii) significant subclavian artery stenosis (n = 4) or an aberrant subclavian artery (n = 3) precluding Sentinel-CPS implantation and (iii) clinical characteristics including hypersensitivity to nickel-titanium (n = 1), radial artery occlusion (n = 1) or previous left common carotid artery interventions (n = 5). MSCT and clinical data supported Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients. The most common reason for treatment exclusion was inappropriate diameter within the target landing zone of the left carotid artery. Future device development should address this limitation.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>31904829</pmid><doi>10.1093/icvts/ivz306</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8685-532X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1569-9285
ispartof Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2020-04, Vol.30 (4), p.605-612
issn 1569-9285
1569-9285
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2333933055
source Oxford Journals Open Access Collection; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
title Patient eligibility for application of a two-filter cerebral embolic protection device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: does one size fit all?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T06%3A21%3A48IST&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=Patient%20eligibility%20for%20application%20of%20a%20two-filter%20cerebral%20embolic%20protection%20device%20during%20transcatheter%20aortic%20valve%20implantation:%20does%20one%20size%20fit%20all?&rft.jtitle=Interactive%20cardiovascular%20and%20thoracic%20surgery&rft.au=Voss,%20Stephanie&rft.date=2020-04-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=605&rft.epage=612&rft.pages=605-612&rft.issn=1569-9285&rft.eissn=1569-9285&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/icvts/ivz306&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2333933055%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=2333933055&rft_id=info:pmid/31904829&rfr_iscdi=true