2016年至2020年德国基于导管的左房阑尾闭合术的院内疗效。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Clinical Research in Cardiology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-12 DOI:10.1007/s00392-023-02299-w
Alexander Maier, Klaus Kaier, Timo Heidt, Dirk Westermann, Constantin von Zur Mühlen, Sebastian Grundmann
{"title":"2016年至2020年德国基于导管的左房阑尾闭合术的院内疗效。","authors":"Alexander Maier, Klaus Kaier, Timo Heidt, Dirk Westermann, Constantin von Zur Mühlen, Sebastian Grundmann","doi":"10.1007/s00392-023-02299-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>New and refined catheter based left atrial appendage (LAA) closure devices have been introduced in the past decade. The procedure can be performed using either an endocardial occlusion device or an epicardial loop stitch. We aimed to analyzed recent procedural safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Catheter based LAA closures were identified in a complete nationwide German dataset via ICD and OPS codes from 2016 to 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2016 to 2020, 28,039 endocardial and 213 epicardial occlusions were performed. Numbers of endocardial procedures increased from 5259 in 2016 to 5917 in 2020 (p = 0.020) in 387 centers with shifting of patients' characteristics towards older age (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), more heart failure (β = 1.01, p < 0.001) and renal disease (β = 0.67, p = 0.001) and without a significant trend for in-hospital safety except more bleeding (β = 0.12, p = 0.05). In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) or pericardial puncture were independent on center procedure numbers. The loop stitch procedure was performed in 15 centers. Patients were younger (76.17 ± 8.16 vs. 73.16 ± 8.99, p < 0.001) and had a lower comorbidity index (2.29 ± 1.93 vs. 1.92 ± 1.64, p = 0.005). Adjusted risk difference for pericardial effusion (8.04%; 95% CI 3.01-13.08%; p = 0.002) and pericardial puncture (6.60%; 95% CI 3.85-9.35%; p < 0.001) was higher for the loop stitch procedure, while risk of bleeding (- 1.85%; 95% CI - 3.01 to - 0.69%; p = 0.002), intracerebral bleeding (- 0.37%; 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.15%; p = 0.001) and shock (- 1.41%; 95% CI - 2.44 to - 0.39%; p = 0.007) was lower. No significant difference was observed for in-hospital MACCE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endocardial occlusion was the major catheter based LAA closure procedure in Germany without improvements in in-hospital safety from 2016 to 2020. In-hospital MACCE was independent on endocardial LAAC center volumes. Conclusions on the comparison between the two procedure types must be made cautious as the LAA loop stitch occlusion was utilized limited in a minor number of centers.</p>","PeriodicalId":10474,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Research in Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11420385/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Catheter based left atrial appendage closure in-hospital outcomes in Germany from 2016 to 2020.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Maier, Klaus Kaier, Timo Heidt, Dirk Westermann, Constantin von Zur Mühlen, Sebastian Grundmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00392-023-02299-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>New and refined catheter based left atrial appendage (LAA) closure devices have been introduced in the past decade. The procedure can be performed using either an endocardial occlusion device or an epicardial loop stitch. We aimed to analyzed recent procedural safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Catheter based LAA closures were identified in a complete nationwide German dataset via ICD and OPS codes from 2016 to 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2016 to 2020, 28,039 endocardial and 213 epicardial occlusions were performed. Numbers of endocardial procedures increased from 5259 in 2016 to 5917 in 2020 (p = 0.020) in 387 centers with shifting of patients' characteristics towards older age (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), more heart failure (β = 1.01, p < 0.001) and renal disease (β = 0.67, p = 0.001) and without a significant trend for in-hospital safety except more bleeding (β = 0.12, p = 0.05). In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) or pericardial puncture were independent on center procedure numbers. The loop stitch procedure was performed in 15 centers. Patients were younger (76.17 ± 8.16 vs. 73.16 ± 8.99, p < 0.001) and had a lower comorbidity index (2.29 ± 1.93 vs. 1.92 ± 1.64, p = 0.005). Adjusted risk difference for pericardial effusion (8.04%; 95% CI 3.01-13.08%; p = 0.002) and pericardial puncture (6.60%; 95% CI 3.85-9.35%; p < 0.001) was higher for the loop stitch procedure, while risk of bleeding (- 1.85%; 95% CI - 3.01 to - 0.69%; p = 0.002), intracerebral bleeding (- 0.37%; 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.15%; p = 0.001) and shock (- 1.41%; 95% CI - 2.44 to - 0.39%; p = 0.007) was lower. No significant difference was observed for in-hospital MACCE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endocardial occlusion was the major catheter based LAA closure procedure in Germany without improvements in in-hospital safety from 2016 to 2020. In-hospital MACCE was independent on endocardial LAAC center volumes. Conclusions on the comparison between the two procedure types must be made cautious as the LAA loop stitch occlusion was utilized limited in a minor number of centers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Research in Cardiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11420385/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Research in Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-023-02299-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Research in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-023-02299-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:过去十年间,基于导管的新型和改进型左房阑尾(LAA)闭合装置不断问世。该手术既可使用心内膜闭塞装置,也可使用心外膜环形缝合。我们旨在分析最近的手术安全性:方法:通过 ICD 和 OPS 编码,在 2016 年至 2020 年期间的一个完整的德国全国性数据集中识别了基于导管的 LAA 关闭术:从2016年到2020年,共进行了28039例心内膜闭塞手术和213例心外膜闭塞手术。387个中心的心内膜手术数量从2016年的5259例增加到2020年的5917例(p = 0.020),患者特征向高龄化转变(β = 0.29,p 结论:心内膜闭塞是最常见的心外膜闭塞:心内膜闭塞术是德国基于导管的主要 LAA 关闭术,2016 年至 2020 年的院内安全性没有改善。院内 MACCE 与心内膜 LAAC 中心容量无关。由于LAA环缝闭塞术仅在少数中心使用,因此对两种手术类型的比较结论必须谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Catheter based left atrial appendage closure in-hospital outcomes in Germany from 2016 to 2020.

Catheter based left atrial appendage closure in-hospital outcomes in Germany from 2016 to 2020.

Background: New and refined catheter based left atrial appendage (LAA) closure devices have been introduced in the past decade. The procedure can be performed using either an endocardial occlusion device or an epicardial loop stitch. We aimed to analyzed recent procedural safety.

Methods: Catheter based LAA closures were identified in a complete nationwide German dataset via ICD and OPS codes from 2016 to 2020.

Results: From 2016 to 2020, 28,039 endocardial and 213 epicardial occlusions were performed. Numbers of endocardial procedures increased from 5259 in 2016 to 5917 in 2020 (p = 0.020) in 387 centers with shifting of patients' characteristics towards older age (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), more heart failure (β = 1.01, p < 0.001) and renal disease (β = 0.67, p = 0.001) and without a significant trend for in-hospital safety except more bleeding (β = 0.12, p = 0.05). In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) or pericardial puncture were independent on center procedure numbers. The loop stitch procedure was performed in 15 centers. Patients were younger (76.17 ± 8.16 vs. 73.16 ± 8.99, p < 0.001) and had a lower comorbidity index (2.29 ± 1.93 vs. 1.92 ± 1.64, p = 0.005). Adjusted risk difference for pericardial effusion (8.04%; 95% CI 3.01-13.08%; p = 0.002) and pericardial puncture (6.60%; 95% CI 3.85-9.35%; p < 0.001) was higher for the loop stitch procedure, while risk of bleeding (- 1.85%; 95% CI - 3.01 to - 0.69%; p = 0.002), intracerebral bleeding (- 0.37%; 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.15%; p = 0.001) and shock (- 1.41%; 95% CI - 2.44 to - 0.39%; p = 0.007) was lower. No significant difference was observed for in-hospital MACCE.

Conclusions: Endocardial occlusion was the major catheter based LAA closure procedure in Germany without improvements in in-hospital safety from 2016 to 2020. In-hospital MACCE was independent on endocardial LAAC center volumes. Conclusions on the comparison between the two procedure types must be made cautious as the LAA loop stitch occlusion was utilized limited in a minor number of centers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Research in Cardiology
Clinical Research in Cardiology 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
140
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Research in Cardiology is an international journal for clinical cardiovascular research. It provides a forum for original and review articles as well as critical perspective articles. Articles are only accepted if they meet stringent scientific standards and have undergone peer review. The journal regularly receives articles from the field of clinical cardiology, angiology, as well as heart and vascular surgery. As the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, it gives a current and competent survey on the diagnosis and therapy of heart and vascular diseases.
×
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