论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨经肱动脉入路介入治疗外科瓣膜置换术后人工瓣膜瓣周漏（PVL）的可行性、有效性和安全性。方法:本研究为回顾性研究。选取2017年8月至2019年10月于阜外医院结构性心脏病中心接受经肱动脉入路介入治疗的外科瓣膜置换术后PVL患者。所有患者均在局部麻醉下穿刺肱动脉，进行造影和经导管封堵操作，在经胸超声心动图（TTE）监测下进行介入手术。收集患者的基线资料、手术资料及手术前后TTE检查结果，记录术后并发症，出院后门诊随访手术相关不良事件。计算手术成功率，手术成功定义为封堵器置入后30 d内不影响瓣膜运动和冠状动脉血流，且TTE显示瓣周反流程度下降1级及以上。结果:本研究共纳入10例患者，年龄（57.5±14.6）岁，其中男性6例。主动脉瓣PVL 7例，二尖瓣PVL 3例。除1例患者改为股静脉-房间隔入路外，其余9例患者成功经肱动脉入路置入封堵器，手术时间为（103.3±34.0）min，术后无需卧床制动。住院时间为7.5（3.0，9.8）d，经肱动脉入路的手术成功率为9/10。患者手术前后的PVL反流程度、纽约心脏病协会（NYHA）心功能分级、左心室舒张末期内径、左心房内径等指标差异均有统计学意义（n P均<0.05）。1例术后第2天新发溶血伴肾功能不全，经透析治疗后顺利出院；1例术后肱动脉假性动脉瘤，经瘤体内注射凝血酶好转后出院。随访（14.3±7.9）个月，随访期间9例患者心功能维持在Ⅰ/Ⅱ级，无严重手术相关不良事件。n 结论:经肱动脉入路介入治疗外科瓣膜置换术后PVL是一种可行、有效、安全的操作，可简化操作流程、减少术后卧床制动时间。“,”Objective:To investigate the feasibility, efficacy and safety of transbrachial access for interventional therapy on prosthetic paravalvular leak (PVL) post surgical valve replacement.Methods:This is a retrospective study. Patients with PVL after surgical valve replacement who underwent interventional therapy via the brachial artery approach in Structural heart disease center of Fuwai hospital between August 2017 and October 2019, were included. All patients underwent puncture of the brachial artery under local anesthesia, angiography and transcatheter closure procedure were performed. The procedure was performed under transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) guidance. Baseline data, operation data and pre-and post-operative TTE examination results were collected and analyzed. Postoperative complications were recorded and operational adverse events were obtained during follow up in the outpatient department after discharge. The operation success rate was calculated, which was defined as the degree of perivalvular regurgitation decrease by 1 grade and above according to TTE without interfering the valve movement and coronary artery blood flow within 30 days after occluder placement.Results:A total of 10 patients were enrolled in this study, the mean age was (57.5±14.6) years, and 6 patients were males. There were 7 cases with aortic PVL, and 3 cases with mitral PVL. Except for one patient who was converted to the femoral vein-transseptal approach, the other 9 patients were successfully implanted with the devices via the brachial artery approach. The operation time was (103.3±34.0) minutes, and there was no need for rigorous bed rest after the operation. The median hospital stay was 7.5 (3.0, 9.8) days. The operation success rate was 9/10 via the brachial artery approach. The differences in the degree of perivalvular regurgitation, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, left ventricular end diastolic diameter and left atrial diameter before and after operation were statistically significant (all n P<0.05). One case developed new hemolysis with renal insufficiency on the second day after procedure and discharged after successful dialysis. Another case experienced complication of brachial artery pseudoaneurysm after procedure and discharged after successful treatment with thrombin injection. The mean follow-up time was (14.3±7.9) months. During the follow-up, NYHA classification remained as Ⅰ/Ⅱ in 9 patients, no operational adverse events were observed.n Conclusions:Transbrachial access for interventional therapy on PVL post surgical valve replacement is a feasible, effective, and safe procedure. It has the advantages of simplifying the operation process and reducing postoperative bed rest time.