Search

Your search keyword '"Reinartz M"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Author "Reinartz M" Journal cardiovascular revascularization medicine including molecular interventions
2 results on '"Reinartz M"'

1. Post-Market Clinical Follow-Up With the Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Device IrisFIT (Lifetech) in Patients With Stroke, Transient Ischemic Attack, or Other Thromboembolic Events.

Author

Sievert K, Yu J, Bertog S, Hornung M, von Bardeleben RS, Gafoor S, Reinartz M, Matic P, Hofmann I, Grunwald I, Schnelle N, and Sievert H

Subjects
Cardiac Catheterization adverse effects, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Treatment Outcome, Foramen Ovale, Patent complications, Foramen Ovale, Patent diagnostic imaging, Foramen Ovale, Patent surgery, Ischemic Attack, Transient etiology, Ischemic Attack, Transient prevention & control, Septal Occluder Device, Stroke etiology, Stroke prevention & control
Abstract

Background: A patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been associated with embolic strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs). Catheter closure of PFO is effective in preventing recurrent events. Residual shunts and procedure or device related complications can occur, including atrial fibrillation and thrombus formation. This study examines the initial experience with a new PFO closure device, the IrisFIT PFO-Occluder (Lifetech Scientific, Shenzhen, China)., Methods: 95 patients with indications for PFO closure underwent percutaneous closure with the IrisFIT PFO-Occluder. The primary endpoint was the rate of accurate device placement with no/small residual shunt at 3 or 6 months follow-up. All patients underwent transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) after 1 to 6 months. In case of a residual shunt, an additional TEE was performed after 12 months. Clinical follow-up was performed up to a mean of 33.1 ± 3.6 months., Results: The device was successfully implanted in 95 (100%) patients with no relevant procedural complications. At final TEE follow-up (7.6 ± 3.9 months) the effective closure rate was 96.8% with 1 moderate and 2 large residual shunts. There were 8 cases of new onset atrial fibrillation and 2 TIAs. There were no cases of device embolization or erosion., Conclusion: The IrisFIT occluder is a new PFO closure device with several advantages compared to other devices. In this small study cohort, technical success rate, closure rate and adverse event rate were comparable to other devices. The rate of new onset atrial fibrillation was higher in comparison to other studies and warrants further investigation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Kolja Sievert: none. Jiangtao Yu: BBraun, Boston Scientific, LifeTech. Stefan Bertog: none. Marius Hornung: none. Ralph Stephan von Bardeleben: none. Sameer Gafoor: none. Markus Reinartz: none. Predrag Matic: none. Ilona Hofmann: none. Iris Grunwald: none. Nalan Schnelle: none. Horst Sievert: 4tech Cardio, Abbott, Ablative Solutions, Ancora Heart, Bavaria Medizin Technologie GmbH, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Carag, Cardiac Dimensions, Celonova, Cibiem, CGuard, Comed B.V., Contego, CVRx, Edwards, Endologix, Hemoteq, InspireMD, Lifetech, Maquet Getinge Group, Medtronic, Mitralign, Nuomao Medtech, Occlutech, pfm Medical, Recor, Renal Guard, Rox Medical, Terumo, Vascular Dynamics, Vivasure Medical, Venus, Veryan., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Permanent Pacemaker Lead Insertion Connected to an External Pacemaker Generator for Temporary Pacing After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Author

Goncalves CR, Bertog S, Tholakanahalli V, Römer A, Hofmann I, Reinartz M, Gafoor S, Sievert K, Schnelle N, Grunwald I, and Sievert H

Subjects
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Arrhythmias, Cardiac diagnosis, Arrhythmias, Cardiac etiology, Equipment Design, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Safety, Retrospective Studies, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome, Arrhythmias, Cardiac therapy, Cardiac Pacing, Artificial adverse effects, Electric Power Supplies, Pacemaker, Artificial, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement adverse effects
Abstract

Background: Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been demonstrated to be at least equivalent in the short term compared to surgical valve implantation (SAVI). However, Conduction abnormalities are more common after TAVI than SAVI and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation is more common after TAVI with the currently commercially available self-expanding valves than after SAVI. Temporary pacemaker implantation may be associated with inability to ambulate, lead migration or perforation and infection. Depending on the monitoring system, some arrhythmias may not be detected. We examined the feasibility and safety of permanent pacemaker lead implantation connected to an external generator in patients undergoing TAVI at our institution., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients (between April 1st 2014 and April 30th 2016) at a single center without permanent pacemaker at the time of TAVI who underwent implantation of a permanent pacemaker lead after TAVI connected to an external generator. Focus was the examination of feasibility and safety of our aforementioned approach. In addition, data analysis was performed separating patients into two groups depending on whether (group 1) or not (group 2) permanent pacemaker implantation was ultimately needed., Results: Per our institutional protocol, all consecutive 114 patients underwent insertion of a permanent pacemaker lead after TAVI connected to an external generator. There was one pericardial effusion on postoperative day one that may have been related to the left ventricular wire for TAVI valve delivery. However, perforation due to the pacemaker lead cannot be excluded. Specifically, no access site complications, lead dislodgments or infections occurred. All patients were able to ambulate after the procedure without delay. The permanent pacemaker lead remained in place on average for 4.3 days in group 1 (n = 10) and 4.4 days in group 2 (n = 104) (variance of 3.8 and 3.4 days respectively, [minimum/maximum 0/11 days and 1 and 12 days]). Of the ten patients (9%) who required permanent pacemaker implantation, 8 had a complete atrioventricular block and two had tachy-brady arrhythmias in the context of atrial fibrillation. None of the baseline characteristics including baseline conduction abnormalities were predictors for PPI., Conclusion: Implantation of a permanent pacemaker lead connected to an external generator is feasible and safe and could be a better option than implantation of a temporary lead connected to an external generator. It may allow earlier ambulation and facilitate monitoring., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results