Suppr超能文献

经激光鞘管与股动脉入路提取旧起搏器或除颤器导线的比较。

Extraction of old pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator leads by laser sheath versus femoral approach.

机构信息

Hospital Du Haut-Leveque, Service Pr Clementy, Pessac, France.

出版信息

Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Aug;3(4):319-23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.109.933051. Epub 2010 Jun 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Some operators routinely extract chronically implanted transvenous leads from a femoral, whereas others prefer a superior approach. This prospective study compared the safety and effectiveness of laser sheaths versus femoral snare extractions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The single-center study comprised 101 patients referred for unequivocal indications to extract > or =1 transvenous lead(s). Patients were >4 years of age and were randomly assigned to extractions with a laser sheath (group 1: n=50) versus a snare via femoral approach (group 2: n=51). The multicenter study comprised 358 patients who underwent extraction of old transvenous leads using laser sheaths (n=218, group 3) in 3 centers and from a femoral approach (n=138, group 4) in 3 other centers. In the single-center study, the success and complications rates were similar in groups 1 and 2. No patient died of a periprocedural complication. The procedural duration (51+/-22 versus 86+/-51 minutes) and duration of total fluoroscopic exposure (7+/-7 versus 21+/-17 minutes) were significantly shorter (each P<0.01) in group I than in group 2. In the multicenter study, we observed 2 procedure-associated deaths in group 3 versus 1 in group 4. Major procedural complications were observed in 3% of patients in group 3, versus 3% in group 4 (P=NS). The rates of complete, partial, and unsuccessful extractions were similar in groups 3 and 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Old transvenous leads were extracted with similar success and complication rates by the femoral and laser approaches. However, the femoral approach was associated with longer procedures and a longer duration of fluoroscopic exposure.

摘要

背景

一些术者常规从股静脉取出慢性植入的经静脉导线,而另一些术者则更喜欢经上腔静脉途径。本前瞻性研究比较了激光鞘与股静脉套圈在经静脉导线取出中的安全性和有效性。

方法和结果

该单中心研究纳入了 101 例因明确适应证需取出≥1 根经静脉导线的患者。患者年龄>4 岁,随机分为使用激光鞘(组 1:n=50)或股静脉套圈(组 2:n=51)进行取出。多中心研究纳入了 358 例使用激光鞘(组 3:n=218)和股静脉途径(组 4:n=138)取出陈旧经静脉导线的患者。在单中心研究中,组 1 和组 2 的成功率和并发症发生率相似。无患者死于围术期并发症。组 1 的手术时间(51+/-22 分钟 vs. 86+/-51 分钟)和总透视时间(7+/-7 分钟 vs. 21+/-17 分钟)明显短于组 2(均 P<0.01)。在多中心研究中,我们观察到组 3 中有 2 例与手术相关的死亡,而组 4 中有 1 例。组 3 中有 3%的患者出现主要手术并发症,而组 4 中有 3%(P=NS)。组 3 和组 4 的完全、部分和不成功取出率相似。

结论

陈旧经静脉导线经股静脉和激光途径取出成功率和并发症发生率相似,但股静脉途径手术时间和透视时间较长。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验