Dataset Information

The Coronary Sinus Reducer; 5-year Dutch experience.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Refractory angina is a growing and major health-care problem affecting millions of patients with coronary artery disease worldwide. The Coronary Sinus Reducer (CSR) is a device that may be considered for the relief of symptoms of refractory angina. It causes increased venous pressure leading to a dilatation of arterioles and reduced arterial vascular resistance in the sub-endocardium. This study describes the 5‑year Dutch experience regarding safety and efficacy of the CSR.

Methods

One hundred and thirty-two patients with refractory angina were treated with the CSR. The primary efficacy endpoint of the study was Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class improvement between baseline and 6‑month follow-up. The primary safety endpoint was successful CSR implantation in the absence of any device-related events.

Results

Eighty-five patients (67%) showed improvement of at least 1 CCS class and 43 patients (34%) of at least 2 classes. Mean CCS class improved from 3.17 ± 0.61 to 2.12 ± 1.07 after implantation (P < 0.001). The CSR was successfully implanted in 99% of the patients and only minor complications during implantation were reported.

Conclusion

The CSR is a simple, safe, and effective option for most patients with refractory angina. However, approximately thirty percent of the patients showed no benefit after implantation. Future studies should focus on the exact underlying mechanisms of action and reasons for non-response to better identify patients that could benefit most from this therapy.

SUBMITTER: Silvis MJM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7991026 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:To systematically investigate the frequency and types of allegations related to radiology practice handled by the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court in the past 10 years. METHODS:The Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court database was searched for verdicts concerning radiology practice between 2010 and 2019. The association between the number of verdicts and time (years) was assessed by Spearman's rho. Other data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:There were 48 verdicts (mean 4.8 per year). There was no significant association between the number of verdicts and time (Spearman's rho <?0.001, p?=?0.99). Most allegations were in breast imaging and musculoskeletal radiology (each 18.8%), followed by interventional radiology, head and neck imaging, and abdominal imaging (each 12.5%), neuroradiology and vascular imaging (each 10.4%), and chest imaging (4.2%). There were 46 allegations against radiologists (95.8%) and 2 against residents (4.2%). The most common allegation (37.5%) was error in diagnosis. In 20.8% of verdicts, the allegation was judged (partially) founded; disciplinary measures were warnings (n?=?8) and reprimands (n?=?2). An appeal was submitted by the patient in 11 cases and by the radiologist in 3 cases. All appeals by patients were rejected, whereas 2 of the 3 appeals by radiologists were granted and previously imposed disciplinary measures were reversed. CONCLUSION:Allegations against radiologists at the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court are relatively few, their number has remained stable over the past 10 years, and a minority were judged to be (partially) founded. We can learn from the cases presented in this article, which may improve patient care. KEY POINTS:• The frequency of allegations against radiologists at the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court is relatively low and has not exhibited any temporal change over the past 10 years. • These allegations reflect patient dissatisfaction, but this infrequently equals malpractice. • Knowledge of the circumstances under which these allegations have arisen may improve patient care.

Project description:Placement of a percutaneous coronary sinus catheter (CSC) by an anesthesiologist for retrograde cardioplegia in minimally invasive cardiac surgery is relatively safe in experienced hands. However, the popularity of its placement remains limited to a small number of centers due to its perceived complexity and potential complications.We retrospectively reviewed all cardiac cases performed by one surgeon between December 2009 and April 2012. The reviewed cases were divided into two groups: cardiac cases with percutaneous CSC placement (CSC group) and cardiac cases without placement (control group). Anesthesia preparation time (APT) was then compared between the CSC group and control group. In the CSC group, cases were further divided into two groups. One group contained cases with an APT of less than 90 min (success group) and the other contained cases with an APT greater than or equal to 90 min or cases with CSC placement failure (delay/failure group). Patients' characteristics, type of surgery, and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) findings were compared between the two groups (success group vs. delay/failure group) to identify variables associated with prolongation of the APT or CSC placement failure.Percutaneous CSC placement was required in 83 cases (CSC group). The catheter was successfully placed in 74 of those cases. We experienced one complication, coronary sinus injury after multiple attempts at placing the catheter. The mean APT was 102 ± 31 min in the CSC group (n = 81) and 42 ± 15 min in the control group (n = 285). We could not identify any variables associated with prolongation of the APT or catheter placement failure.The success rate of the placement was 89.1 % in our academic center. On average, placing the CSC added approximately one additional hour to the APT. This time is not an accurate representation of true catheter placement time, as it included time for preparation of the CSC, TEE, and fluoroscopy. We experienced one documented complication (coronary sinus injury), which was immediately diagnosed by TEE and fluoroscopy in the operating room. No variables associated with prolongation of APT or CSC placement failure were identified.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A growing population of patients lives with severe coronary artery disease not amenable to coronary revascularization and with refractory angina despite optimal medical therapy. Percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus is an emerging treatment for myocardial ischemia that increases coronary sinus pressure to promote a transcollateral redistribution of coronary artery in-flow from nonischemic to ischemic subendocardial territories. A first-in-man study has demonstrated that the percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus can be performed safely in such patients. The COSIRA trial seeks to assess whether a percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus can improve the symptoms of refractory angina in patients with limited revascularization options. METHODS/DESIGN:The COSIRA trial is a phase II double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized parallel trial comparing the percutaneously implanted coronary sinus Reducer (Neovasc Inc, Richmond, BC, Canada) to a sham implantation in 124 patients enrolled in Canada, Belgium, England, Scotland, Sweden and Denmark. All patients need to have stable Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III or IV angina despite optimal medical therapy, with evidence of reversible ischemia related to disease in the left coronary artery, and a left ventricular ejection fraction >25%. Participants experiencing an improvement in their angina ?2 CCS classes six months after the randomization will meet the primary efficacy endpoint. The secondary objective of this trial is to test whether coronary sinus Reducer implantation will improve left ventricular ischemia, as measured by the improvement in dobutamine echocardiogram wall motion score index and in time to 1 mm ST-segment depression from baseline to six-month post-implantation. DISCUSSION:Based on previous observations, the COSIRA is expected to provide a significant positive result or an informative null result upon which rational development decisions can be based. Patient safety is a central concern and extensive monitoring should allow an appropriate investigation of the safety related to the coronary sinus Reducer. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier - NCT01205893.