Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society
-
Potential cardiovascular benefits of precordial percussion pacing (PPP) during cardiac standstill are unknown.Methods and Results:A cardiac standstill model in amicrominipigwas created by inducing complete atrioventricular block with a catheter ablation technique (n=7). Next, the efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by standard chest compressions (S-CPR), PPP and ventricular electrical pacing in this model were analyzed in series (n=4). To assess the mechanism of PPP, a non-selective, stretch-activated channel blocker, amiloride, was administered during PPP (n=3). Peak systolic and diastolic arterial pressures during S-CPR, PPP and ventricular electrical pacing were statistically similar. However, the duration of developed arterial pressure with PPP was comparable to that with ventricular electrical pacing, and significantly greater than that with S-CPR. Amiloride decreased the induction rate of ventricular electrical activity by PPP in a dose-related manner. Each animal survived without any neurological deficit at 24, 48 h and 1 week, even with up to 2 h of continuous PPP. ⋯ In amicrominipigmodel of cardiac standstill, PPP can become a novel means to significantly improve physiological outcomes after cardiac standstill or symptomatic bradyarrhythmias in the absence of cardiac pacing. Activation of the non-selective stretch-activated channels may mediate some of the mechanophysiological effects of PPP. Further study of PPP by itself and together with S-CPR is warranted using cardiac arrest models of atrioventricular block and asystole.
-
Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Comparison of the Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical and Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves - A Propensity Score Analysis.
The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) with either mechanical or bioprosthetic valves according to age at operation.Methods and Results:A total of 1,002 patients (527 mechanical valves and 475 bioprosthetic valves) undergoing first-time AVR were categorized according to age at operation: group Y, age <60 years; group M, age 60-69 years; and group O, age ≥70 years). Outcomes were compared on propensity score analysis (adjusted for 28 variables). Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using the Cox regression model with adjustment for propensity score with bioprosthetic valve as a reference (HR=1). There were no significant differences in overall mortality between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves for all age groups. Valve-related mortality was significantly higher for mechanical valves in group O (HR, 2.53; P=0.02). Reoperation rate was significantly lower for mechanical valves in group Y (HR, 0.16; P<0.01) and group M (no events for mechanical valves). Although the rate of thromboembolic events was higher in mechanical valves in group Y (no events for tissue valves) and group M (HR, 9.05; P=0.03), there were no significant differences in bleeding events between all age groups. ⋯ The type of prosthetic valve used in AVR does not significantly influence overall mortality.