Impact of Drug Elution on Infectious Outcomes after Ductal Stenting in Newborns.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Keyhan Sayadpour Zanjani, Aliakbar Zeinaloo, Elaheh Malakan Rad, Sara Norouzi, Kayvan Mirnia, Mojtaba Gorji
{"title":"Impact of Drug Elution on Infectious Outcomes after Ductal Stenting in Newborns.","authors":"Keyhan Sayadpour Zanjani, Aliakbar Zeinaloo, Elaheh Malakan Rad, Sara Norouzi, Kayvan Mirnia, Mojtaba Gorji","doi":"10.1007/s00246-024-03625-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ductal stenting (DS) is an interesting palliation for neonates with duct-dependent pulmonary circulation. With the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), which have a lower rate of restenosis and longer patency, these stents have replaced bare metal stents (BMS) in the global market. DES release Rapamycin group drugs, which have anti-proliferative and immunosuppressive effects. While the released drug amount is negligible in adult patients, it can lead to high blood levels in neonates, potentially increasing their risk of infections. We conducted a retrospective observational study on infants (under 2 months of age) with duct-dependent pulmonary circulation who underwent successful DS procedures between September 2013 and September 2023. Infants who received at least one DES were categorized into the DES group, while those receiving only BMS were categorized into the BMS group. We compared the prevalence of sepsis (both clinical and proven) and mortality between the two groups. We identified 53 infants (58.4% males), comprising 30 (56.6%) in the DES group and 23 (43.4%) in the BMS group. In the DES group, there were 11 cases (36.7%) of sepsis, including 8 clinical and 3 culture-positive cases. In contrast, the BMS group had 4 cases (13%) of sepsis, all of which were clinical (p = 0.053). Three patients (5.6%) died due to sepsis: two from the DES group and one from the BMS group. Six patients were suspected of having immunodeficiency (22q11.2 deletion or asplenia), with three in each group. Among these, only one patient in the DES group developed clinical sepsis. Our findings indicate that drug elution did not significantly increase the risk of infection following DS in newborns.</p>","PeriodicalId":19814,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-024-03625-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ductal stenting (DS) is an interesting palliation for neonates with duct-dependent pulmonary circulation. With the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), which have a lower rate of restenosis and longer patency, these stents have replaced bare metal stents (BMS) in the global market. DES release Rapamycin group drugs, which have anti-proliferative and immunosuppressive effects. While the released drug amount is negligible in adult patients, it can lead to high blood levels in neonates, potentially increasing their risk of infections. We conducted a retrospective observational study on infants (under 2 months of age) with duct-dependent pulmonary circulation who underwent successful DS procedures between September 2013 and September 2023. Infants who received at least one DES were categorized into the DES group, while those receiving only BMS were categorized into the BMS group. We compared the prevalence of sepsis (both clinical and proven) and mortality between the two groups. We identified 53 infants (58.4% males), comprising 30 (56.6%) in the DES group and 23 (43.4%) in the BMS group. In the DES group, there were 11 cases (36.7%) of sepsis, including 8 clinical and 3 culture-positive cases. In contrast, the BMS group had 4 cases (13%) of sepsis, all of which were clinical (p = 0.053). Three patients (5.6%) died due to sepsis: two from the DES group and one from the BMS group. Six patients were suspected of having immunodeficiency (22q11.2 deletion or asplenia), with three in each group. Among these, only one patient in the DES group developed clinical sepsis. Our findings indicate that drug elution did not significantly increase the risk of infection following DS in newborns.

新生儿导管支架术后药物洗脱对感染结果的影响
对于患有管道依赖性肺循环的新生儿来说,管道支架置入术(DS)是一种有趣的姑息治疗方法。药物洗脱支架(DES)的再狭窄率更低,通畅时间更长,随着它的问世,这些支架已在全球市场上取代了裸金属支架(BMS)。药物洗脱支架释放雷帕霉素类药物,具有抗增殖和免疫抑制作用。虽然在成人患者中释放的药物量可以忽略不计,但在新生儿中会导致血药浓度升高,从而增加感染风险。我们对在 2013 年 9 月至 2023 年 9 月期间成功接受 DS 手术的导管依赖性肺循环婴儿(2 个月以下)进行了一项回顾性观察研究。接受至少一次 DES 的婴儿被归入 DES 组,而仅接受 BMS 的婴儿被归入 BMS 组。我们比较了两组之间败血症(临床和已证实)的发生率和死亡率。我们确认了53名婴儿(58.4%为男性),其中DES组30名(56.6%),BMS组23名(43.4%)。DES组有11例(36.7%)败血症,包括8例临床病例和3例培养阳性病例。相比之下,BMS组有4例(13%)败血症,均为临床病例(P = 0.053)。三名患者(5.6%)死于败血症:DES 组两名,BMS 组一名。六名患者被怀疑患有免疫缺陷(22q11.2缺失或无胰岛),每组各三名。其中,只有 DES 组的一名患者出现了临床败血症。我们的研究结果表明,药物洗脱并不会显著增加新生儿 DS 后的感染风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pediatric Cardiology
Pediatric Cardiology 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
258
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The editor of Pediatric Cardiology welcomes original manuscripts concerning all aspects of heart disease in infants, children, and adolescents, including embryology and anatomy, physiology and pharmacology, biochemistry, pathology, genetics, radiology, clinical aspects, investigative cardiology, electrophysiology and echocardiography, and cardiac surgery. Articles which may include original articles, review articles, letters to the editor etc., must be written in English and must be submitted solely to Pediatric Cardiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信