Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California 92868, USA.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Jul;3(7):751-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.04.015.
The aim of this study was to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes of femoral arterial access with ultrasound (US) guidance with standard fluoroscopic guidance.
Real-time US guidance reduces time to access, number of attempts, and complications in central venous access but has not been adequately assessed in femoral artery cannulation.
Patients (n = 1,004) undergoing retrograde femoral arterial access were randomized 1:1 to either fluoroscopic or US guidance. The primary end point was successful common femoral artery (CFA) cannulation by femoral angiography. Secondary end points included time to sheath insertion, number of forward needle advancements, first pass success, accidental venipunctures, and vascular access complications at 30 days.
Compared with fluoroscopic guidance, US guidance produced no difference in CFA cannulation rates (86.4% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.17), except in the subgroup of patients with CFA bifurcations occurring over the femoral head (82.6% vs. 69.8%, p < 0.01). US guidance resulted in an improved first-pass success rate (83% vs. 46%, p < 0.0001), reduced number of attempts (1.3 vs. 3.0, p < 0.0001), reduced risk of venipuncture (2.4% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.0001), and reduced median time to access (136 s vs. 148 s, p = 0.003). Vascular complications occurred in 7 of 503 and 17 of 501 in the US and fluoroscopy groups, respectively (1.4% vs. 3.4% p = 0.04).
In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, routine real-time US guidance improved CFA cannulation only in patients with high CFA bifurcations but reduced the number of attempts, time to access, risk of venipunctures, and vascular complications in femoral arterial access. (Femoral Arterial Access With Ultrasound Trial [FAUST]; NCT00667381).
本研究旨在比较超声(US)引导与标准透视引导下股动脉入路的操作和临床结局。
实时 US 引导可减少中心静脉置管的入路时间、尝试次数和并发症,但在股动脉插管中尚未得到充分评估。
将 1004 例接受逆行股动脉入路的患者随机分为透视组和 US 组,1:1 分配。主要终点是通过股动脉造影成功进行股总动脉(CFA)穿刺。次要终点包括鞘管插入时间、前向穿刺针推进次数、初次穿刺成功率、意外静脉穿刺和 30 天内血管入路并发症。
与透视引导相比,US 引导在 CFA 穿刺率方面无差异(86.4% vs. 83.3%,p=0.17),但在 CFA 分叉位于股骨头上方的亚组中差异有统计学意义(82.6% vs. 69.8%,p<0.01)。US 引导可提高初次穿刺成功率(83% vs. 46%,p<0.0001)、减少尝试次数(1.3 次 vs. 3.0 次,p<0.0001)、降低静脉穿刺风险(2.4% vs. 15.8%,p<0.0001)和缩短入路时间(136 秒 vs. 148 秒,p=0.003)。US 组和透视组血管并发症分别为 7 例(7/503,1.4%)和 17 例(17/501,3.4%)(p=0.04)。
在这项多中心随机对照试验中,常规实时 US 引导仅在 CFA 分叉较高的患者中改善了 CFA 穿刺,但减少了股动脉入路的尝试次数、入路时间、静脉穿刺风险和血管并发症。(股动脉入路超声试验[FAUST];NCT00667381)。