Author + information
- Received February 2, 2017
- Revision received May 3, 2017
- Accepted May 4, 2017
- Published online September 4, 2017.
- R. Allen Ligon, MD,
- Yinn K. Ooi, MD,
- Dennis W. Kim, MD,
- Robert N. Vincent, MD and
- Christopher J. Petit, MD∗ ()
- Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- ↵∗Address for correspondence:
Dr. Christopher J. Petit, 2835 Brandywine Road, Suite 300, Atlanta, Georgia 30341.
Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare results between the femoral arterial (FA) and carotid arterial (CA) approaches in catheter-based interventions on Blalock-Taussig shunts (BTS).
Background Transcatheter intervention on BTS is often performed in shunt-dependent, hypoxemic infants. The approach to BTS intervention likely has an impact on timeliness and overall success.
Methods The authors reviewed all cases of catheter intervention for BTS obstruction between 2012 and 2017 for their institution. They sought to compare procedural success rates and time, sheath time, time to arterial access, and time from access to stent implantation between FA and CA approaches.
Results There were 42 BTS interventions between 34 patients. BTS intervention was more successful from the CA approach (p = 0.035). Among the FA cohort, BTS intervention was unsuccessful in 8 cases (25%), 5 of which were converted to CA with subsequent success. The CA cohort had lower procedure time (62 min vs. 104 min; p = 0.01) and anesthesia time (119 min vs. 151 min; p = 0.01). Additionally, CA access was associated with shorter time to arterial access (4.0 min vs. 9.3 min; p < 0.01), time to placement of the guidewire through the BTS (6.5 min vs. 13 min; p < 0.01), and time from the final sheath to BTS stent implantation (9 min vs. 20 min; p < 0.01).
Conclusions Operators should consider the route of access to the BTS deliberately. The authors’ approach has been the carotid artery as an alternative access site—associated with greater procedural success, shorter procedural time, and shorter time to stent implantation.
The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
- Received February 2, 2017.
- Revision received May 3, 2017.
- Accepted May 4, 2017.
- 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation