Lin Jeffrey, Adsit Graham, Barnett Anne, Tattersall Matthew, Field Michael E, Wright Jennifer
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2017 Oct;50(1):105-109. doi: 10.1007/s10840-017-0273-3. Epub 2017 Jul 27.
Ultrasound (US)-guided access for venous catheter placement has previously been shown to improve success rates and decrease access-related complications. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of US-guided versus traditional vascular access approaches during implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).
We evaluated outcomes for 816 consecutive patients undergoing new CIED implantation between May 2013 and April 2016 at a single institution with respect to use of US guidance for vascular access (137 with US guidance versus 679 with traditional access techniques). The primary outcome was a composite of procedural complications including deep vein thrombosis, pneumothorax, or hematoma.
There was no cross-over between US guidance and traditional access. The overall complication rate was 3.6% (2.2% in US, 3.8% in non-US). The use of US was associated with a decrease in fluoroscopy time (r = -0.17, p < 0.01) but not the primary outcome (r = 0.03, p = 0.34). In models adjusted for age and number of leads, use of US was non-significantly associated with a change in fluoroscopy time (beta = -0.20, p = 0.7). In logistic models adjusted for age and number of leads, use of US was associated with a trend toward reduced major complications (OR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.17-1.91, p = 0.36).
US-guided vascular access for CIED implantation is safe and effective compared to traditional approaches with a non-significant reduction in both fluoroscopy time and procedural complications.
先前研究表明,超声(US)引导下进行静脉导管置入可提高成功率并减少与穿刺相关的并发症。本研究旨在确定在植入心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)期间,US引导与传统血管穿刺方法相比的可行性。
我们评估了2013年5月至2016年4月在单一机构连续接受新CIED植入的816例患者,比较了采用US引导进行血管穿刺(137例)与传统穿刺技术(679例)的情况。主要结局是包括深静脉血栓形成、气胸或血肿在内的手术并发症综合情况。
US引导组与传统穿刺组之间无交叉。总体并发症发生率为3.6%(US引导组为2.2%,非US引导组为3.8%)。使用US与透视时间减少相关(r = -0.17,p < 0.01),但与主要结局无关(r = 0.03,p = 0.34)。在根据年龄和导联数量进行调整的模型中,使用US与透视时间变化无显著相关性(β = -0.20,p = 0.7)。在根据年龄和导联数量进行调整的逻辑模型中,使用US与主要并发症减少趋势相关(OR = 0.57,95%CI 0.17 - 1.91,p = 0.36)。
与传统方法相比,CIED植入术中US引导下的血管穿刺是安全有效的,透视时间和手术并发症均有非显著性降低。