About Burdwan University

Burdwan University

Articles by Burdwan University

Incidence and outcome of no flow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction

Published on: 31st August, 2020

OCLC Number/Unique Identifier: 8667871110

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) is the most effective treatment modality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Incidence of no flow is 8.8% - 10% in primary PCI of STEMI patients. Our aim was to study actual incidence and outcome of no flow patients. Methods: Five hundred and eighty primary PCI patients were enrolled and evaluated from 2016 January to 2017 December. We used drug eluting stents in all cases. Majority of our patients (> 90%) presented to emergency six hours after onset of symptoms. There were many patients where there was no flow even after mechanical thrombus aspiration and pharmacological vasodilator therapy. We have studied primary outcome (mortality) of no flow in those patients. Results: There were 44 cases of no flow in our series (7.75%). Involvement of Left anterior descending artery (LAD) was in eighteen patients. Right coronary artery (RCA) was culprit in twenty four cases. Only two cases were seen in LCX territory. One month mortality rate in no flow group was 50% and 6.25% in successful recanalization group. One year mortality was 12.5% in successful recanalization group and 66% in no flow group. Conclusion: Refractory no flow during STEMI intervention is associated with increased incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). There is no established strategy to solve this phenomenon.
Cite this ArticleCrossMarkPublonsHarvard Library HOLLISGrowKudosResearchGateBase SearchOAI PMHAcademic MicrosoftScilitSemantic ScholarUniversite de ParisUW LibrariesSJSU King LibrarySJSU King LibraryNUS LibraryMcGillDET KGL BIBLiOTEKJCU DiscoveryUniversidad De LimaWorldCatVU on WorldCat

A study on pacemaker pocket infection

Published on: 25th March, 2020

OCLC Number/Unique Identifier: 8576354340

Objective: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections now constitute ∼ 10% of all endocarditis cases. The incidence of CIED infection is usually < 2%. Our objective was to study pacemaker pocket infection rate and different risk factors in our institution. Methods: This observational study was conducted over a period of five years from January 2011 to December 2016 and it included 1096 patients. Common risk factors like patients with diabetes, repeat procedure, chronic renal failure, chronic obstructive airway disease, immunosuppressive agents were studied in our patients. Results: Our study consisted of 1096 patients. Pacemaker pocket infection occurred in sixteen patients (1.5%). Chronic renal failure patients were one hundred thirty in our study (11.86%). There were three hundred fifty six diabetic patients (32.48%). Repeat procedure was done in ninety five patients (8.6%). Results: Our study consisted of 1096 patients. Pacemaker pocket infection occurred in sixteen patients (1.5%). Chronic renal failure patients were one hundred thirty in our study (11.86%). There were three hundred fifty six diabetic patients (32.48%). Repeat procedure was done in ninety five patients (8.6%) Eighty six patients were suffering from chronic obstructive airway (7.8%). Patients on immunosuppressive therapy were fourteen in our study (1.2%). Conclusion: Pacemaker pocket infections is a dreaded complication after pacemaker implantation. During implantation, there is a risk of device contamination with the patient’s own skin flora and it can be prevented by ideal surgical asepsis technique, pre and perioperative use of antibiotics.
Cite this ArticleCrossMarkPublonsHarvard Library HOLLISGrowKudosResearchGateBase SearchOAI PMHAcademic MicrosoftScilitSemantic ScholarUniversite de ParisUW LibrariesSJSU King LibrarySJSU King LibraryNUS LibraryMcGillDET KGL BIBLiOTEKJCU DiscoveryUniversidad De LimaWorldCatVU on WorldCat
Help ?