Araştırma Çıktıları | TR-Dizin | WoS | Scopus | PubMed

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/4806

Browse

Filters

2020 - 20212

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Beyazpinar, Deniz SarpHas files: No

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Direct aortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation
    (2021) Karacaglar, Emir; Akgun, Arzu Neslihan; Aydinalp, Alp; Beyazpinar, Deniz Sarp; Sezgin, Atila; Muderrisoglu, Haldun; 34623302
    Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe and effective alternative to surgical valve replacement in intermediate and even in low-risk patient cohorts. Direct aortic (DAo) route may be used in patients with severe peripheral vascular disease. Here, we present an 88-year old patient hospitalized with cardiogenic shock. Echocardiography revealed severe aortic valve stenosis with aortic valve area 0.5 cm(2), mean gradient of 55 mmHg, and peak gradient 92 mmHg. TAVI was considered by the Institutional Heart Team. Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) revealed severe peripheral vascular disease, decreased calibration of abdominal aorta, and multiple large vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques. The patient was scheduled for a DAo TAVI. A 26-mm Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R valve was implanted after predilatation with median sternotomy. The patient was discharged after 96 hours. Although transfemoral (TF) access is used as the default approach for TAVI, it was contraindicated in our patient owing to severe peripheral vascular disease and decreased calibration of the abdominal aorta at its narrowest point (4.5 mm) with multiple large vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques. Careful preprocedural MSCT evaluation is essential and directly affects the success of the procedure. MSCT is also mandatory to confirm the best cannulation zone that must be met for a successful DAo TAVI.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Device-related epistaxis risk: continuous-flow left ventricular assist device-supported patients
    (2020) Koycu, Alper; Vural, Omer; Bahcecitapar, Melike; Jafarov, Sabuhi; Beyazpinar, Gulfem; Beyazpinar, Deniz Sarp; 0000-0003-1290-3509; 0000-0001-7157-0850; 0000-0003-4324-9458; 0000-0002-7302-4199; 32556786; AAF-3650-2021; AAJ-1454-2021; AAI-9939-2021; AAI-8044-2021
    Background The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of device-dependent factors on epistaxis episodes comparing patients supported with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) to patients under the same antithrombotic therapy. Methods Patients who underwent CF-LVAD between 2012 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively from the institutionally adopted electronic database. Patients who underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR) surgery receiving the same anticoagulant and antiaggregant therapy were included as a control group. Demographics, epistaxis episodes, and nonepistaxis bleeding between the two groups were compared. Results A total of 179 patients met the inclusion criteria (61 patients CF-LVAD group, 118 patients MVR group). The median (range) follow-up periods for the study (CF-LVAD) and control (MVR) groups were 370 (2819) and 545.70 (2356) days, respectively. There was a significant difference for frequency of bleeding episodes per month between CF-LVAD and MVR groups (p = 0.003 < 0.05). The most common site of bleeding was the anterior septum in both groups (90.9% for the CF-MVR group and 100% for the MVR group). While 14 patients (23%) had nonepistaxis bleeding in the CF-LVAD group, only two patients (1.7%) had nonepistaxis bleeding in the MVR group. There were significant differences in nonepistaxis bleeding rates between the CF-LVAD and MVR groups (chi(2)=19.79,p < 0.001). Conclusion Both epistaxis and nonepistaxis bleeding rates were higher in the CF-LVAD group than in the MVR group. This suggests that the use of CF-LVAD support could directly increase the risk of hemorrhagic complications.