Inicio
Autor Diaz, Juan Carlos
|
|
Documentos disponibles escritos por este autor (2)
Clasificado(s) por (Año de edición descendente) Refinar búsquedaImpact of intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography guidance on left atrial appendage occlusion procedures: A meta-analysis / Diaz, Juan Carlos
Título : Impact of intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography guidance on left atrial appendage occlusion procedures: A meta-analysis Tipo de documento : documento electrónico Autores : Diaz, Juan Carlos, Autor ; Oriana Cristina Bastidas Ayala, Autor ; Mauricio Duque, Autor ; Marín, Jorge E, Autor ; Aristizábal, Julian, Autor ; César Daniel Niño Pulido, Autor ; Hoyos, Carolina, Autor ; Matos, Carlos D, Autor ; Gabr, Mohamed, Autor ; Steiger, Nathaniel A, Autor ; Kapur, Sunil, Autor ; Sahuer, William H, Autor ; Romero, Jorge E, Autor Fecha de publicación : 2024 ISBN/ISSN/DL : 98700011902 Idioma : Inglés (eng) Palabras clave : Intracardiac echocardiography; left atrial appendage occlusion; meta-analysis; transesophageal echocardiography. Clasificación: AC-2024-007 Resumen : Background: Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly used during left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of ICE versus TEE guidance during LAAO on procedural characteristics and acute outcomes, as well the presence of peri-device leaks and residual septal defects during follow-up. Methods: All studies comparing ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO were identified. The primary outcomes were procedural efficacy and occurrence of procedure-related complications. Secondary outcomes included lab efficiency (defined as a reduction in in-room time), procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and presence of peri-device leaks and residual interatrial septal defects (IASD) during follow-up. Results: Twelve studies (n = 5637) were included. There were no differences in procedural success (98.3% vs. 97.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.27, p = .27; I2 = 0%) or adverse events (4.5% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.81 95% CI 0.56-1.16, p = .25; I2 = 0%) between the ICE-guided and TEE-guided groups. ICE guidance reduced in in-room time (mean-weighted 28.6-min reduction in in-room time) without differences in procedural time or fluoroscopy time. There were no differences in peri-device leak (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.27, p = 0.64); however, an increased prevalence of residual IASD was observed with ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO (46.3% vs. 34.2%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.05-4.75, p = 0.04). Conclusion: ICE guidance is associated with similar procedural efficacy and safety, but could result in improved lab efficiency (as established by a significant reduction in in-room time). No differences in the rate of periprocedural leaks were found. A higher prevalence of residual interatrial septal defects was observed with ICE guidance. DOI (Digital Object Identifier) : 10.1111/jce.16118 Derechos de uso : Permiso de republicación otorgado al HPTU En línea : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37927196/ Enlace permanente : https://hospitalpablotobon.cloudbiteca.com/pmb/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_dis [Publicación periódica] Impact of intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography guidance on left atrial appendage occlusion procedures: A meta-analysis [documento electrónico] / Diaz, Juan Carlos, Autor ; Oriana Cristina Bastidas Ayala, Autor ; Mauricio Duque, Autor ; Marín, Jorge E, Autor ; Aristizábal, Julian, Autor ; César Daniel Niño Pulido, Autor ; Hoyos, Carolina, Autor ; Matos, Carlos D, Autor ; Gabr, Mohamed, Autor ; Steiger, Nathaniel A, Autor ; Kapur, Sunil, Autor ; Sahuer, William H, Autor ; Romero, Jorge E, Autor . - 2024.
ISSN : 98700011902
Idioma : Inglés (eng)
Palabras clave : Intracardiac echocardiography; left atrial appendage occlusion; meta-analysis; transesophageal echocardiography. Clasificación: AC-2024-007 Resumen : Background: Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly used during left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of ICE versus TEE guidance during LAAO on procedural characteristics and acute outcomes, as well the presence of peri-device leaks and residual septal defects during follow-up. Methods: All studies comparing ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO were identified. The primary outcomes were procedural efficacy and occurrence of procedure-related complications. Secondary outcomes included lab efficiency (defined as a reduction in in-room time), procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and presence of peri-device leaks and residual interatrial septal defects (IASD) during follow-up. Results: Twelve studies (n = 5637) were included. There were no differences in procedural success (98.3% vs. 97.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.27, p = .27; I2 = 0%) or adverse events (4.5% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.81 95% CI 0.56-1.16, p = .25; I2 = 0%) between the ICE-guided and TEE-guided groups. ICE guidance reduced in in-room time (mean-weighted 28.6-min reduction in in-room time) without differences in procedural time or fluoroscopy time. There were no differences in peri-device leak (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.27, p = 0.64); however, an increased prevalence of residual IASD was observed with ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO (46.3% vs. 34.2%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.05-4.75, p = 0.04). Conclusion: ICE guidance is associated with similar procedural efficacy and safety, but could result in improved lab efficiency (as established by a significant reduction in in-room time). No differences in the rate of periprocedural leaks were found. A higher prevalence of residual interatrial septal defects was observed with ICE guidance. DOI (Digital Object Identifier) : 10.1111/jce.16118 Derechos de uso : Permiso de republicación otorgado al HPTU En línea : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37927196/ Enlace permanente : https://hospitalpablotobon.cloudbiteca.com/pmb/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_dis Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Left Ventricular Septal Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy / Oriana Cristina Bastidas Ayala ; Diaz, Juan Carlos ; Tedrow, Usha B. ; Mauricio Duque ; Aristizábal, Julian ; Braunstein, Eric D. ; Marín, Jorge ; Niño, Cesar ; López Cabanillas, Nestor ; Koplan, Bruce A. ; Hoyos, Carolina ; Matos, Carlos D ; Hincapié, Daniela ; Velasco, Alejandro ; Steiger, Nathaniel A ; Kapur, Sunil ; Sauer, William H. ; Romero, Jorge E
Título : Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Left Ventricular Septal Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Tipo de documento : documento electrónico Autores : Oriana Cristina Bastidas Ayala, Autor ; Diaz, Juan Carlos, Autor ; Tedrow, Usha B., Autor ; Mauricio Duque, Autor ; Aristizábal, Julian, Autor ; Braunstein, Eric D., Autor ; Marín, Jorge, Autor ; Niño, Cesar, Autor ; López Cabanillas, Nestor, Autor ; Koplan, Bruce A., Autor ; Hoyos, Carolina, Autor ; Matos, Carlos D, Autor ; Hincapié, Daniela, Autor ; Velasco, Alejandro, Autor ; Steiger, Nathaniel A, Autor ; Kapur, Sunil, Autor ; Sauer, William H., Autor ; Romero, Jorge E, Autor Fecha de publicación : 2024 Títulos uniformes : JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology Idioma : Inglés (eng) Palabras clave : cardiac resynchronization therapyconduction system pacingleft bundle branch area pacingheart failure Resumen : Background Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are considered to be acceptable as LBBAP strategies. Differences in clinical outcomes between LBBP and LVSP are yet to be determined. Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of LBBP vs LVSP vs BIVP for CRT. Methods In this prospective multicenter observational study, LBBP was compared with LVSP and BIVP in patients undergoing CRT. The primary composite outcome was freedom from heart failure (HF)–related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, postprocedural NYHA functional class, and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters. Results A total of 415 patients were included (LBBP: n = 141; LVSP: n = 31; BIVP: n = 243), with a median follow-up of 399 days (Q1-Q3: 249.5-554.8 days). Freedom from the primary composite outcomes was 76.6% in the LBBP group and 48.4% in the LVSP group (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.143-1.649; P = 0.001), driven by a 31.4% absolute increase in freedom from HF-related hospitalizations (83% vs 51.6%; HR: 3.55; 95% CI: 1.856-6.791; P Mención de responsabilidad : Juan C. Diaz, Usha B. Tedrow, Mauricio Duque, Julian Aristizabal, Eric D. Braunstein, Jorge Marin, Cesar Niño, Oriana Bastidas, Nestor Lopez Cabanillas, Bruce A. Koplan, Carolina Hoyos, Carlos D. Matos, Daniela Hincapie, Alejandro Velasco, Nathaniel A. Steiger, Sunil Kapur, Thomas M. Tadros, Paul C. Zei, William H. Sauer, and Jorge E. Romero Referencia : JACC: Clinical EP › Archives › Vol. 10 No. 2 DOI (Digital Object Identifier) : 10.1016/j.jacep.2023.10.016 Derechos de uso : CC BY-NC-ND En línea : https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacep.2023.10.016 Enlace permanente : https://hospitalpablotobon.cloudbiteca.com/pmb/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_dis Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Left Ventricular Septal Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [documento electrónico] / Oriana Cristina Bastidas Ayala, Autor ; Diaz, Juan Carlos, Autor ; Tedrow, Usha B., Autor ; Mauricio Duque, Autor ; Aristizábal, Julian, Autor ; Braunstein, Eric D., Autor ; Marín, Jorge, Autor ; Niño, Cesar, Autor ; López Cabanillas, Nestor, Autor ; Koplan, Bruce A., Autor ; Hoyos, Carolina, Autor ; Matos, Carlos D, Autor ; Hincapié, Daniela, Autor ; Velasco, Alejandro, Autor ; Steiger, Nathaniel A, Autor ; Kapur, Sunil, Autor ; Sauer, William H., Autor ; Romero, Jorge E, Autor . - 2024.
Obra : JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
Idioma : Inglés (eng)
Palabras clave : cardiac resynchronization therapyconduction system pacingleft bundle branch area pacingheart failure Resumen : Background Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are considered to be acceptable as LBBAP strategies. Differences in clinical outcomes between LBBP and LVSP are yet to be determined. Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of LBBP vs LVSP vs BIVP for CRT. Methods In this prospective multicenter observational study, LBBP was compared with LVSP and BIVP in patients undergoing CRT. The primary composite outcome was freedom from heart failure (HF)–related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, postprocedural NYHA functional class, and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters. Results A total of 415 patients were included (LBBP: n = 141; LVSP: n = 31; BIVP: n = 243), with a median follow-up of 399 days (Q1-Q3: 249.5-554.8 days). Freedom from the primary composite outcomes was 76.6% in the LBBP group and 48.4% in the LVSP group (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.143-1.649; P = 0.001), driven by a 31.4% absolute increase in freedom from HF-related hospitalizations (83% vs 51.6%; HR: 3.55; 95% CI: 1.856-6.791; P Mención de responsabilidad : Juan C. Diaz, Usha B. Tedrow, Mauricio Duque, Julian Aristizabal, Eric D. Braunstein, Jorge Marin, Cesar Niño, Oriana Bastidas, Nestor Lopez Cabanillas, Bruce A. Koplan, Carolina Hoyos, Carlos D. Matos, Daniela Hincapie, Alejandro Velasco, Nathaniel A. Steiger, Sunil Kapur, Thomas M. Tadros, Paul C. Zei, William H. Sauer, and Jorge E. Romero Referencia : JACC: Clinical EP › Archives › Vol. 10 No. 2 DOI (Digital Object Identifier) : 10.1016/j.jacep.2023.10.016 Derechos de uso : CC BY-NC-ND En línea : https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacep.2023.10.016 Enlace permanente : https://hospitalpablotobon.cloudbiteca.com/pmb/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_dis Reserva
Reservar este documento
Ejemplares(1)
Código de barras Número de Ubicación Tipo de medio Ubicación Sección Estado DD002182 AC-2024-035 Archivo digital Producción Científica Artículos científicos Disponible
