English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the percentage of patients potentially eligible for implantation of the Sentinel™ Cerebral Protection System (Sentinel-CPS) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to identify the reasons for treatment exclusion. METHODS We retrospectively performed an analysis of pre-TAVI multislice computed tomography (MSCT) aortograms and data review of all patients undergoing a TAVI procedure in 2017 (n = 317). MSCT evaluation included the assessment of aortic arch anatomy and the vascular dimensions of the brachiocephalic and left common carotid artery. Data analysis focused on comorbid conditions, precluding 6-Fr sheath radial access and filter deployment due to history of previous artery interventions. RESULTS MSCT and data analysis showed Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients (n = 195). Sentinel-CPS would have been contraindicated in 38.5% (n = 122) due to one or more of the following: (i) measured diameters of the filter-landing zones &amp;lt;9 or &amp;gt;15 mm in the brachiocephalic artery and &amp;lt;6.5 or &amp;gt;10 mm in the left common carotid artery (n = 116; 88 with carotid dimensions too small); (ii) significant subclavian artery stenosis (n = 4) or an aberrant subclavian artery (n = 3) precluding Sentinel-CPS implantation and (iii) clinical characteristics including hypersensitivity to nickel–titanium (n = 1), radial artery occlusion (n = 1) or previous left common carotid artery interventions (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS MSCT and clinical data supported Sentinel-CPS compatibility in 61.5% of patients. The most common reason for treatment exclusion was inappropriate diameter within the target landing zone of the left carotid artery. Future device development should address this limitation.

interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery

Patient eligibility for application of a two-filter cerebral embolic protection device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: does one size fit all?