Balloon catheter therapy for valvular heart disease: the state of the art.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to B Letac.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
We studied the electrophysiological effects of clonidine in 10 patients (mean age, 69 years) without sinus dysfunction or atrioventricular block. An endocavitary study was performed with two multipolar catheters, one to record and stimulate the right atrium, the other to record the His bundle potential. The stimulations were delivered by an orthorhythmic stimulator. Clonidine, 150 micrograms, was injected intravenously over 10 min. The usual electrophysiological parameters for studying atrioventricular conduction and sinus function were measured under basal conditions, between the 10th and 25th min, and between the 25th and 40th min following the onset of the injection of clonidine. Sinus cycle length, maximum corrected sinus node recovery time, estimated atrio-sinoatrial conduction time, and premature atrial stimulation-response curve were not influenced by clonidine. There were also no changes in conduction interval, anterograde conduction point, effective refractory period of the atrioventricular node, and intraventricular conduction time. We conclude that intravenous clonidine does not change the electrophysiological parameters in man.
Two hundred patients had an aortic valve replacement with the Smeloff-Cutter prosthesis between 1972 and 1980. One hundred and seventy six patients had aortic valve replacement alone (mortality 2.8%) and 24 patients had additional procedures. The overall mortality was 6.5%. One hundred and eighty seven patients have been followed up for from 4 months to 8 years (mean 33 months). The 14 patients who died later are analysed; half of these deaths were prosthesis related. There has been no instance of structural failure, ball variance or massive thrombosis in this series. All but 4 of the survivors showed functional improvement. We consider the Smeloff-Cutter valve a good choice for aortic valve replacement.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.