We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Intracardiac echocardiography: an ideal guiding tool for device closure of interatrial communications.
European Journal of Echocardiography 2005 March
BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate safety and radiation exposure when using intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) in comparison to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in order to guide transcatheter closure of interatrial communications.
METHODS: Eighty patients (44 males, 36 females, mean age 46, SD 13 years) undergoing device closure of atrial septal defect (n=12) or patent foramen ovale (n=68) had the procedure guided by ICE (n=50, group 1) or TEE (n=30, group 2). In group 1, all procedural stages were completely guided by ICE, including imaging of the interatrial communication during balloon sizing, device unfolding and release, and during the final check for adequate positioning. In group 2, exclusive implantation of devices was guided by use of TEE.
RESULTS: Especially, the spatial relationship between device and cardiac structures (e.g. the ascending aorta, the interatrial septum and the superior vena cava) was accurately demonstrated in group 1. Image resolution provided by ICE was superior to that of TEE. No severe complications, including any related to ICE, were seen. Fluoroscopy time (FT) and procedure time (PT) were shorter in group 1 than in group 2 (FT: 5.5+/-1.5 min vs. 9.3+/-1.6 min, P<0.0001; PT: 31.9+/-4.6 min vs. 38.8+/-5.8 min, P<0.01). Neither sedation nor anesthesia was required in group 1.
CONCLUSIONS: ICE is a safe tool to guide device closure of interatrial communications. For the patient, procedural stress and radiation exposure are negligible. ICE can be considered the guiding tool of choice for device closure, particularly when long or repeated echocardiographic viewing is required.
METHODS: Eighty patients (44 males, 36 females, mean age 46, SD 13 years) undergoing device closure of atrial septal defect (n=12) or patent foramen ovale (n=68) had the procedure guided by ICE (n=50, group 1) or TEE (n=30, group 2). In group 1, all procedural stages were completely guided by ICE, including imaging of the interatrial communication during balloon sizing, device unfolding and release, and during the final check for adequate positioning. In group 2, exclusive implantation of devices was guided by use of TEE.
RESULTS: Especially, the spatial relationship between device and cardiac structures (e.g. the ascending aorta, the interatrial septum and the superior vena cava) was accurately demonstrated in group 1. Image resolution provided by ICE was superior to that of TEE. No severe complications, including any related to ICE, were seen. Fluoroscopy time (FT) and procedure time (PT) were shorter in group 1 than in group 2 (FT: 5.5+/-1.5 min vs. 9.3+/-1.6 min, P<0.0001; PT: 31.9+/-4.6 min vs. 38.8+/-5.8 min, P<0.01). Neither sedation nor anesthesia was required in group 1.
CONCLUSIONS: ICE is a safe tool to guide device closure of interatrial communications. For the patient, procedural stress and radiation exposure are negligible. ICE can be considered the guiding tool of choice for device closure, particularly when long or repeated echocardiographic viewing is required.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app