MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401487865 · doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102250

Hemodynamic Assessment and Transcatheter Intervention Treating Pulmonary Vein Stenosis

2024· article· en· W4401487865 on OpenAlexaff
Ashish H. Shah, Triston Eastman, Petra Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary veinOstiumPulmonary wedge pressureCardiologyStenosisInternal medicineAngioplastyPulmonary vein stenosisAtrial fibrillationLeft pulmonary arteryPulmonary arteryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 66-year-old woman started experiencing progressive dyspnea on physical activity 18 months after undergoing radiofrequency pulmonary vein (PV) isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. CT pulmonary angiography during the levo phase demonstrated significant stenosis of the left upper lobe vein, whereas the left lower lobe vein could not be visualized. Cardiac catheterization demonstrated a mean right atrial pressure of 12 mm Hg, pulmonary artery pressure of 33/18 with a mean of 24 mm Hg, mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in the right lung of 16 mm Hg, and 25 mm Hg in the left lung. The left pulmonary angiogram demonstrated severe stenosis in the left upper lobe pulmonary vein (LUPV) during the levo phase. After a transseptal puncture, we could cannulate the LUPV using a balanced middleweight coronary angioplasty wire. A 4F glide catheter was placed beyond the ostium and its position into a true lumen was confirmed. Simultaneous pressure in the PV and the left atrium (LA) demonstrated ∼6 mm Hg gradient (Figure 1A). Doppler signal during transesophageal echocardiography demonstrated 1.8 m/s velocity and persistent forward flow through the LUPV (Figure 1B), whereas the left lower lobe pulmonary vein could not be visualized. Despite multiple attempts, we could not cannulate the left lower lobe pulmonary vein. After initial dilatation using 2.5-mm and 3.0-mm compliant balloons, we exchanged a Balance Middle Weight wire (Abbott) for an Amplatz extra stiff wire. The LUPV was further dilated using 5.0 × 20 and 8.0 × 20 mm peripheral angioplasty balloons up to 8 atm, lasting for ∼40 to 60 seconds (Figure 1C, D). With sequential balloon dilation, the PV grew; however, within 10 minutes after ballooning the PV ostium appeared to be getting stenosed again with an increasing gradient between the LUPV and the LA (Figure 1E). Hence, we stented this LUPV using a Genesis 8 mm × 18 mm stent (Figure 1F). The stent was further postdilated using an 8 mm diameter noncompliant balloon up to 8 atm that resolved any gradient between the LUPV and the LA (Figure 1G). Moreover, poststenting, the Doppler velocity across the LUPV decreased to 0.8 m/s (Figure 1H). The patient was advised to continue with rivaroxaban long-term. Repeat CT pulmonary angiography 7 years postprocedure demonstrated patent stent. PV stenosis (PVS) post–atrial fibrillation ablation is not uncommon, and the incidence increases with repeated procedures.1Raeisi-Giglou P. Wazni O.M. Saliba W.I. et al.Outcomes and management of patients with severe pulmonary vein stenosis from prior atrial fibrillation ablation.Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018; 11e006001https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.117.006001Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar Only the patients with severe stenosis involving more than 1 PV are likely to be symptomatic.2Saad E.B. Rossillo A. Saad C.P. et al.Pulmonary vein stenosis after radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: functional characterization, evolution, and influence of the ablation strategy.Circulation. 2003; 108: 3102-3107https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000104569.96907.7FCrossref PubMed Scopus (305) Google Scholar Significant PVS is defined as the mean gradient between the PV and LA of >3 mm Hg, loss of phasic flow, and decreased pulsatility on Doppler examination.3Fender E.A. Widmer R.J. Hodge D.O. et al.Severe pulmonary vein stenosis resulting from ablation for atrial fibrillation: presentation, management, and clinical outcomes.Circulation. 2016; 134: 1812-1821https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021949Crossref PubMed Scopus (112) Google Scholar CT pulmonary venogram and ventilation perfusion scan can help define the PVS severity and their hemodynamic impact.3Fender E.A. Widmer R.J. Hodge D.O. et al.Severe pulmonary vein stenosis resulting from ablation for atrial fibrillation: presentation, management, and clinical outcomes.Circulation. 2016; 134: 1812-1821https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021949Crossref PubMed Scopus (112) Google Scholar Transcatheter intervention treating a stenosed PV is the treatment of choice, whereas cannulating an occluded PV as in this patient remains challenging, and symptomatic patients may warrant surgical lobectomy. Stenting offers a better result than ballooning only; however, at a 3-year follow-up post-PV intervention, nearly one-third of the patients were noted to have >75% stenosis. Hemoptysis, pericardial tamponade, and PV perforation are the most encountered procedural complications.3Fender E.A. Widmer R.J. Hodge D.O. et al.Severe pulmonary vein stenosis resulting from ablation for atrial fibrillation: presentation, management, and clinical outcomes.Circulation. 2016; 134: 1812-1821https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021949Crossref PubMed Scopus (112) Google Scholar •Differential pulmonary capillary wedge (PCW) pressures across lung fields or a significant pressure gradient between PCW pressures and LV end-diastolic pressures should raise suspicion for pulmonary vein stenosis.•The classic finding in severe pulmonary vein stenosis is an elevated mean pulmonary vein pressure (or PCW pressure), with a pulmonary vein to a left atrial gradient of >3 mm Hg and loss of phasic flow.•Interpreting the severity of pulmonary vein stenosis should consider the degree of angiographic narrowing, measured gradients across the stenoses, and differential flow to each lobe, as the flow may affect gradients. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was not supported by funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.270
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207