Ferri Luca A, Farina Andrea, Lenatti Laura, Ruffa Franco, Tiberti GianLuca, Piatti Luigi, Savonitto Stefano
Cardiovascular Department, Ospedale Alessandro Manzoni, Lecco, Italy
Cardiovascular Department, Ospedale Alessandro Manzoni, Lecco, Italy.
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2016 Apr;5(2):125-9. doi: 10.1177/2048872615572598. Epub 2015 Feb 11.
To compare time to active pacing and complication rates associated with temporary transvenous pacemaker (TTVPM) insertion between a fully echo-guided approach of vein access and lead placement, and standard placement of TTVPM under fluoroscopic guidance.
We performed a prospective single-center observational study enrolling all consecutive patients from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2012 needing emergent TTVPM placement. According to personal experience and clinical setting, the operators could choose between a fully echo-guided approach of TTVPM placement through the jugular vein and a standard fluoro-guided approach through the femoral vein. Safety and efficacy endpoints were pre-specified, registered, and compared. A total of 113 patients were treated using the echo-guided approach, and 90 via the fluoro-guided approach. The two groups differed with regard to clinical setting at presentation: an acute coronary syndrome was more frequent in the fluoro-guided approach group (39.7% vs. 16.8%, p<0.001), whereas asystole was more frequent in the echo-guided approach group (9.7 vs. 0%). Median time from decision to active pacing was significantly shorter in the echo-guided approach group (22 vs. 43 minutes, p<0.01). The overall complication rates were significantly lower in the echo-guided approach group (15.0% vs. 28.8%, p 0.02), because of lower rates of infections (2.7% vs. 11.1%, p 0.02) and puncture-related hematomas (0 vs. 3.3%, p=0.08). There were no deaths related to TTVPM, but one heart perforation requiring emergent pericardiocentesis occurred in the fluoro-guided approach group. One pneumothorax treated conservatively occurred in the echo-guided approach group, while no differences were observed with regard to sustained tachyarrhythmias (1.8% vs. 2.2%) or malfunctions requiring reposition of the catheter (8.8 vs. 8.9%). Overall, complications delaying permanent pacemaker implant for >48 hours were observed less often in the echo-guided approach group (6.8 vs. 20.7%, p = 0.03).
Echo-guided insertion of TTVPM through the jugular vein is a feasible and safe alternative to fluoroscopic guidance and may reduce complications and time to active pacing in patients who are not candidates for emergent cardiac catheterization.
比较在完全超声引导下经静脉途径进行静脉穿刺和导线置入与在透视引导下进行临时经静脉起搏器(TTVPM)置入的有效起搏时间及并发症发生率。
我们进行了一项前瞻性单中心观察性研究,纳入了2008年1月1日至2012年12月31日期间所有需要紧急置入TTVPM的连续患者。根据个人经验和临床情况,操作者可在通过颈静脉完全超声引导下置入TTVPM和通过股静脉标准透视引导方法之间进行选择。预先设定、记录并比较安全性和有效性终点。共有113例患者采用超声引导方法治疗,90例采用透视引导方法治疗。两组在就诊时的临床情况有所不同:透视引导方法组急性冠状动脉综合征更为常见(39.7%对16.8%,p<0.001),而超声引导方法组心脏停搏更为常见(9.7%对0%)。超声引导方法组从决定到有效起搏的中位时间显著更短(22分钟对43分钟,p<0.01)。超声引导方法组的总体并发症发生率显著更低(15.0%对28.8%,p=0.02),这是因为感染率更低(2.7%对11.1%,p=0.02)以及穿刺相关血肿发生率更低(0对3.3%,p=0.08)。没有与TTVPM相关的死亡,但透视引导方法组发生了1例需要紧急心包穿刺的心脏穿孔。超声引导方法组发生了1例保守治疗的气胸,而在持续性快速心律失常方面未观察到差异(1.8%对2.2%)或导管需要重新定位的故障方面也未观察到差异(8.8%对8.9%)。总体而言,超声引导方法组中导致永久起搏器植入延迟>48小时的并发症较少见(6.8%对20.7%,p = 0.03)。
通过颈静脉超声引导置入TTVPM是透视引导的一种可行且安全的替代方法,对于不适合紧急心脏导管插入术的患者,可减少并发症并缩短有效起搏时间。