Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: Success and outcomes of a low-volume procedure at a rural medical center

Journal of Invasive Cardiology

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 20-24

  Aslam, Farhan ^a   Iliadis, A Elias ^b   Blankenship, James C ^a  

^a GEISINGER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Department of Anesthesiology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; CLOPIDOGREL; WARFARIN;

ADULT; ANTICOAGULANT THERAPY; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; FEMALE; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; HEART ATRIUM FIBRILLATION; HEART ATRIUM SEPTUM DEFECT; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT SAFETY; PERCUTANEOUS TRANSCATHETER CLOSURE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; STROKE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TRANSIENT ISCHEMIC ATTACK; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY, TRANSESOPHAGEAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HEART SEPTAL DEFECTS, ATRIAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PENNSYLVANIA; PROBABILITY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RURAL HEALTH SERVICES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33846194180     PISSN: 10423931     EISSN: 15572501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Stroke Prevention In Atrial Fibrillation II Study Group. Warfarin vs. aspirin for prevention in thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation. Lancet 1994;343:687-691.
2. Homma S, Di TM, Sacco RL, et al. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke patients. Stroke 1997;28:2376-2381.
3. Bridges ND, Hellenbrand W, Letson L, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale after presumed paradoxical embolism. Circulation 1992;86:1902-1908.
4. Bruch L, Parsi A, Grad MO, et al. Transcatheter closure of interatrial communications for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism: Single center experience. Circulation 2002;105:2845-2848.
5. Martin F, Sanchez P, Doherty E, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Circulation 2002;106:1121-1126.
6. Windecker S, Wahal A, Chatterjee T. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: Long term risks of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation 2000;101:893-898.
7. Herrmann H, Silvestry F, Glaser R, et al. Percutaneous patent foramen and atrial defect closure in adults: Results and device comparison in 100 consecutive implants at a single center. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;64:197-203.
8. Wahl A, Meier B, Haxel B, et al. Prognosis after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical embolism. Neurology 2001;57:1330-1332.
9. Braun MU, Fassbender D, Schoen SP, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cerebral ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:2019-2025.
10. Hong TE, Thaler D, Brorson J, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale associated with paradoxical embolism using the Amplatzer PFO occluder: Initial and intermediate-term results of the U. S. Multicenter Clinical Trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003;60:524-528.
11. Khositseth A, Cabalka AK, Sweeney JP, et al. Transcatheter Amplatzer device cxlosure of atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale in patients with presumed paradoxical embolism. Mayo Clin Proc 2004;79:35-41.
12. Alameddine F, Block PC. Transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolic events: Acute results from the FORECAST Registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004;62:512-516.
13. Windecker S, Wahl A, Nedeltchev K, et al. Comparison of medical treatment with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:750-758.
14. Schwerzmann M, Windecker S, Wahl A, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: Impact of device design on safety and efficacy. Heart 2004;90:186-190.
15. Sievert H, Horvath K, Zadan E, et al. Patent foramen closure in patients with transient ischemia attack/stroke. J Interv Cardiol 2001;14:261-266.
16. Beitzke A, Schuchlenz H, Gamillscheg A, et al. Catheter closure of the persistent patent foramen ovale: Mid-term results in 162 patients. J Interv Cardiol 2001;14:223-229.
17. Onorato E, Melzi G, Casilli F, et al. Patent foramen with paradoxical embolism: Mid-term results of closure in 256 patients. J Interv Cardiol 2003;16:43-50.
18. Reisman M, Christofferson RD, Jesurum J, et al. Migraine headache relief after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:493-495.
19. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, et al. Volume-outcome relationships for percutaneous coronary interventions in the stent era. Circulation 2005;112:1171-1179.
20. Kuntz RE and Nomand S-LT. Measuring percutaneous coronary intervention quality by simple case volume. Circulation 2005;112:1088-1091.
21. Kimmel SE, Berlin JA, Laskey WK. The relationship between coronary angioplasty procedure volume and major complications. JAMA 1995;274:1137-1142.
22. Jollis JG, Peterson ED, Nelson CL, et al. Relatioinship between physician and hospital coronary angioplasty volume and outcome in elderly patients. Circulation 1997;95:2485-2491.
23. Ellis SG, Weinraub W, Holmes D, et al. Relation of operator volume and experience to procedural outcome of percutaneous coronary revasculrization at hospitals with high interventional volumes. Circulation 1997;96:2479-2484.
24. Shook TL, Sun G-W, Burstein S, et al. Comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty outcome and hospital costs for low-volume and high-volume operators. Am J Cardiol 1996;77:331-336.
25. Phillips KA, Luft HA, Ritchie JL. The association of hospital volumes of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with adverse outcomes, length of stay, and charges in California. Med Care 1995;33:502-514.
26. Epstein AJ, Rathore SS, Volpp KG, et al. Hospital percutaneous coronary intervention volume and patient mortality, 1998 to 2000: Does the evidence support current procedure volume minimums? J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1755-1762.
27. Mukherjee D, Wainess RM, Dimick JB, et al. Variation in outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States and predictors of periprocedural mortality. Cardiology 2005;103:143-147.
28. Moscucci M, Share D, Smith D, et al. Relationship between operator volume and adverse outcome in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:625-632.
29. Jacob AS, Pichard AD, Ohnmacht SD, et al. Results of percutaneous transluminal cornary angioplasty by multiple relatively low frequency operators. Am J Cardiol 1986;57:713-716.
30. Klein LW, Schaeer GL, Calvin JE, et al. Does low individual operator coronary interventional procedural volume correlate with worse institutional procedural outcome? J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:870-877.
31. Tsuchihashi M, Tsutsui H, Tada H, et al. Volume-outcome relation for hospitals performing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: Results from the Nationwide Japanese Registry. Circulation J 2004;68:887-891.
32. Jones IV SO, Eckart RE, Shry EA, et al. Review of subacute stent thrombosis following percutaneous coronary intervention at a low-volume catheterization laboratory. J Intervent Cardiol 2005;18:11-15.
33. Ellis SG, Omoigui N, Bittl JA, et al. Analysis and comparison of operator-specific outcomes in interventional cardiology. Circulation 1996;93:431-439.
34. Hamad N, Pichard AD, Lyle HRP, Lindsay J. Results of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by multiple relatively low frequency operators: 1986-1987 experience. Am J Cardiol 1988;61:1229-1231.
35. Harjai KJ, Berman AD, Grines CL, et al. Impact of interventionalist volume, experience, and board certification on coronary angioplasty outcomes in the era of stenting. Am J of Cardiol 2004;94:421-426.
36. Rubartelli P, Niccoli L, Alberti A, et al. Coronary rotational atherectomy in current practice: Acute and mid-term results in high- and low-volume centers. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004;61:463-471.