4.6 Article

Safety, Feasibility of Controllable Decrease of Vena Cava Pressure by Doraya Catheter in Heart Failure

期刊

JACC-BASIC TO TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 394-402

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacbts.2023.02.010

关键词

acute heart failure; device therapy; diuretic resistance; insufficient response; venous congestion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lowering elevated central venous pressure can reduce renal dysfunction in AHF patients. The Doraya catheter creates a pressure gradient to lower renal venous pressure. A feasibility study was performed on 9 AHF patients to evaluate the acute clinical effects of using the Doraya catheter in addition to standard diuretic-based regimen. The deployment of the Doraya catheter was safe and feasible, reducing central venous pressure and improving diuresis and signs of congestion.
Lowering elevated central venous pressure may reduce renal dysfunction in acute heart failure (AHF) patients. The Doraya catheter lowers renal venous pressure by creating a gradient in the inferior vena cava below the renal veins. Here, we present a first-in-human feasibility study of the Doraya catheter performed on 9 AHF patients. We assessed the safety, feasibility, and acute clinical (hemodynamic and renal) effects of transient Doraya catheter deployment when added to the standard diuretic-based regimen in AHF patients with a poor diuretic response. The procedures decreased central venous pressure from 18.4 +/- 3.8 mm Hg to 12.4 +/- 4.7 mm Hg (P < 0.001) and improved mean diuresis and clinical signs of congestion. No device-related serious adverse events were observed. Thus, Doraya catheter deployment was safe and feasible in AHF patients. (First In Human Study of the Doraya Catheter for the Treatment of AHF Patients; NCT03234647)(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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

4.6
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