4.5 Article

Epinephrine stress testing during cardiac catheterization in patients with aortic coarctation

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 225, 期 -, 页码 78-87

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2020.05.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The severity of aortic coarctation (CoA) may be underestimated during cardiac catheterization. We aimed to investigate whether epinephrine stress testing improves clinical decision making and outcome in CoA. Methods We retrospectively evaluated CoA patients >50 kg with a peak systolic gradient (PSG) <= 20 mm Hg during cardiac catheterization who underwent epinephrine stress testing. Subsequent interventional management (stenting or balloon dilatation), complications, and medium-term clinical outcome were assessed. Results Fifty CoA patients underwent cardiac catheterization with epinephrine stress testing. Patients with a high epinephrine PSG (>= 20 mm Hg; n = 24) were younger and more likely to have a hypertensive response to exercise compared to patients with a low epinephrine PSG (<= 20 mm Hg; n = 26). In total, 21 patients (88%) with a high epinephrine PSG underwent intervention, and 20 patients (77%) with a low epinephrine PSG were treated conservatively. After a mean follow-up of 25 +/- 18 months, there was a lower prevalence of hypertension in patients with a high epinephrine PSG who underwent intervention compared to patients with a low epinephrine PSG treated conservatively (19% vs. 76%; P= .001). In a multivariate model, intervention was independently associated with a 14.3-mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure (P = . 001) and a decrease in the use of antihypertensive agents. Conclusions In CoA patients with a low baseline PSG but high epinephrine PSG, percutaneous intervention is associated with a substantial reduction in systemic blood pressure and the use of antihypertensive medication. Accordingly, epinephrine stress testing may be a useful addition in the evaluation of CoA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据