Special Feature

User Panel

My Panel

My Panel

Bookmark Science Articles

Recent News
Bookmark / Share This Science Site

FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding.

FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding. Research Abstract Details 

Research Abstract Table of Contents

Jump to the:

  • Abstract Text of This Paper
  • Journal Published
  • MeSH Keywords of This Abstract
  • Chemicals and Substances Used in this Paper
  • Grants and Granting Agency of this Research
  • Database Accession Numbers Used in this Paper
  • Related Papers
  • Related Research Tags
  • Rate this Research Paper
  • FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding. Abstract Text:

    antonio f cornoAntonio F Corno,edmund j ladusansEdmund J Ladusans,marco pozziMarco Pozzi,stephen kerrStephen Kerr,

    OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy of conventional pulmonary artery banding with that of FloWatch pulmonary artery banding. METHODS: Forty consecutive infants underwent conventional pulmonary artery banding (n = 20; mean age, 1.8 +/- 1.5 months; mean weight, 3.7 +/- 0.7 kg) or FloWatch pulmonary artery banding (n = 20; mean age, 2.6 +/- 1.3 months; mean weight, 4.1 +/- 0.8 kg). Indications were preparation for biventricular repair in 16 of 20 infants, univentricular repair in 2 of 20 infants, and left ventricular retraining in 2 of 20 infants in the conventional pulmonary artery banding group versus 13 of 20, 5 of 20, and 2 of 20 infants, respectively, in the FloWatch pulmonary artery banding group. Twelve of 20 infants required preoperative mechanical ventilation in the conventional pulmonary artery banding group (mean duration, 3.3 +/- 4.3 days) versus preoperative mechanical ventilation required by 14 of 20 in the FloWatch pulmonary artery banding group (mean duration, 17.5 +/- 19.0 days; P < .005). RESULTS: There were 3 early and 2 late deaths after conventional pulmonary artery banding (mean follow-up, 10.8 +/- 9.6 months; range, 1-33 months) versus no early and 2 late deaths after FloWatch pulmonary artery banding (mean follow-up, 13.4 +/- 10.4 months; range, 1-38 months). Postoperative mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit and hospital stays were significantly longer after conventional pulmonary artery banding than those after FloWatch pulmonary artery banding, respectively (10.4 +/- 11.2 vs 3.0 +/- 3.1 days [P < .01], 20.3 +/- 19.9 vs 5.3 +/- 4.6 days [P < .005], and 45.6 +/- 41.6 vs 15.4 +/- 6.4 days [P < .005]). Reoperation to adjust the band was required in 7 (35%) of 20 infants after conventional pulmonary artery banding, whereas no reoperations were required after FloWatch pulmonary artery banding (P < .005). Average cost of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital was, respectively, $45,000 and $45,300 cheaper with FloWatch pulmonary artery banding than average cost with conventional pulmonary artery banding, largely surpassing the cost of the device ($10,000). CONCLUSIONS: FloWatch pulmonary artery banding appears superior to conventional pulmonary artery banding because (1) reoperations are not required; (2) postoperative management is simplified and postoperative mechanical ventilation, stay in the intensive care unit, and stay in the hospital are significantly reduced; and (3) the reduction in costs of postoperative mechanical ventilation, stay in the intensive care unit, and stay in the hospital significantly outweigh the cost of the device.

    FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding. Publishing Authors By Initials

    af cornoAF Corno,ej ladusansEJ Ladusans,m pozziM Pozzi,s kerrS Kerr,

    For similar abstracts research abstracts see: abstracts research

    PUBMED ID PMID:

    MEDLINE DATE:

    FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding. Journal Published:

    PUBLICATION TYPE: Journal Article

    Journal: The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery

    VOLUME: 134

    Page Numbers: 1413-9; discussion 1419-20

    Journal Abbreviation: J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.

    ISSN: 1097-685X

    DAY: 26

    MONTH: 10

    YEAR: 2007

    FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding. Information

    Number of References:

    LANGUAGE: eng

    NlmUniqueID: 376343

    FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding. Keywords Mesh Terms:

    KEYWORDS:

    MESH TERMS:

    Chemical & Substance for Abstract: FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding. Information

    Substance Name:

    Registry Number:

    Grant and Affiliation Information for FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding.

    AFFILIATION: Alder Hey Children Hospital, Liverpool, England.

    Country: United States

    United States Research PublicationUnited States Research Publication

    AGENCY:

    GRANT:

    ACRONYM:

    MEDLINETA: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

    REFSOURCE:

    DATABASENAME:

    ACCESSION NUMBER:

    Number Hits: 0

    FloWatch versus conventional pulmonary artery banding Related Publications

     

    Molecular Station USER Menu

    Welcome to Molecular Station!

    You have to register before you can post on our forums or use our advanced features. Register Now! Its Free and Fast!

    Already registered? Login now below.

    User Name:

    Password:

    Already registered and Forgot your password? Click below to recover it.

    Recover Lost Password

    Join now - it's fast and free!

    Molecular Station is THE largest network of researchers, scientists and science lovers anywhere!

    Research Terms of Usage and Disclaimer
    Home
    Features

    Protocols

    DNA Forum

    Science Forum

    DNA Forum
    Biology Forum

    Science News


    [CaRP] XML error: Invalid document end at line 2

    For more click here:Science News