Shah Sachin, Boyd Graham, Pyne Christopher T, Bilazarian Seth D, Piemonte Thomas C, Jeon Cathy, Waxman Sergio
Lahey Clinic, 41 Burlington Mall Road, 5 East, Cardiovascular Medicine, Burlington, Massachusetts.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jul 1;84(1):70-4. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25249. Epub 2013 Nov 9.
To determine feasibility, safety, and adoption rates of right heart catheterization (RHC) using antecubital venous access (AVA) as compared to using the traditional approach of proximal venous access (PVA).
RHC via PVA (i.e., internal jugular, femoral or subclavian) is generally a low risk procedure; however, complications may occur and are usually access site related. RHC via an antecubital approach has regained attention given the increase in transradial left heart catheterizations.
Patients undergoing RHC for any indication at a single large academic medical center were identified over a 5-year period (January 2008 to December 2012) from a database. Medical records were retrospectively analyzed for demographic, procedural and outcomes data.
Two hundred seventy-two RHC procedures were included (106 AVA, 166 PVA). The adoption rate of AVA for RHC increased rapidly since its introduction in our laboratory in 2010 (100% PVA in 2008 and 2009, 85% AVA in 2012). All procedures were successful; however, 6% of procedures required additional, alternate access to the original site. Initial success rates were similar in the two groups (91 vs. 96% for AVA and PVA respectively, P = 0.12). Fluoroscopy time was shorter in the group of patients who underwent the procedure via AVA. The complication rate was 0% in the AVA group compared with 3% in the PVA group (P = 0.16).
RHC via the AVA is a feasible and safe alternative to PVA. Our experience and rapid adoption support the use AVA as the access site of choice for RHC in uncomplicated patients.
与使用近端静脉通路(PVA)的传统方法相比,确定采用肘前静脉通路(AVA)进行右心导管检查(RHC)的可行性、安全性和采用率。
通过PVA(即颈内静脉、股静脉或锁骨下静脉)进行RHC通常是一种低风险操作;然而,可能会发生并发症,且通常与穿刺部位有关。鉴于经桡动脉左心导管检查的增加,经肘前途径的RHC重新受到关注。
从一个数据库中识别出在一家大型学术医疗中心因任何适应症接受RHC的患者,时间跨度为5年(2008年1月至2012年12月)。对病历进行回顾性分析,以获取人口统计学、操作和结果数据。
共纳入272例RHC操作(106例采用AVA,166例采用PVA)。自2010年AVA在我们实验室引入以来,RHC采用AVA的比例迅速上升(2008年和2009年100%采用PVA,2012年85%采用AVA)。所有操作均成功;然而,6%的操作需要额外的、替代的穿刺部位。两组的初始成功率相似(AVA组和PVA组分别为91%和96%,P = 0.12)。通过AVA进行操作的患者组的透视时间较短。AVA组的并发症发生率为0%,而PVA组为3%(P = 0.16)。
与PVA相比,通过AVA进行RHC是一种可行且安全的替代方法。我们的数据和快速采用支持将AVA作为无并发症患者RHC的首选穿刺部位。