4.3 Article

Initial Experience with the Cook Formula Balloon Expandable Stent in Congenital Heart Disease

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.25543

关键词

stent; congenital heart disease; Fontan procedure; tetralogy of Fallot

资金

  1. Kinderspital Zurich - Eleonorenstiftung
  2. EMDO Stiftung, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IntroductionBalloon expandable stents are an integral part in the catheter treatment of congenital heart disease. In the growing child, stents require dilatation to greater diameters over time. The Cook Formula stent is a recent 316 stainless steel open-cell design licensed for peripheral vascular work. MethodsFollowing extensive ex vivo studies, 112 stents were implanted in 97 children [median age 3.9 (0.01-17.6) years; median weight 13.7 (2.4-62.8) kg] over a 27-month (Oct 2011-Dec 2013) period. ResultsBench testing revealed that there was no stent shortening for dilatation to nominal diameter and beyond. The 5 mm stents could be dilated up to 10 mm, and the 10 mm stents to 20 mm. Stents were implanted through 4-7F sheaths or guide catheters over appropriate wires. Stent tracking and delivery was excellent. Twenty-three stents were implanted in the right ventricular outflow tract in Fallot-type lesions, 53 for branch pulmonary artery stenosis (22 post cavopulmonary shunt/Fontan), 14 conduit stenosis, 13 Fontan fenestrations, 3 PDA in hybrid stage I Norwood, 5 in coarctation, and 1 for SVC obstruction. Sixty-one stents (54%) were overdilated. There were no stent fractures. Radial strength was very good, whereas stent conformability was limited. ConclusionsThe Cook Formula stent is a premounted balloon-expandable stent that can be significantly overdilated with virtually no shortening allowing for precise placement and minimal protrusion into adjacent vessels. The Formula stent is a very versatile addition to the range of stents for use in the catheter treatment of complex congenital heart disease in children. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.3
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