Suppr超能文献

顺行股总动脉闭合装置的使用与并发症减少相关。

Antegrade common femoral artery closure device use is associated with decreased complications.

机构信息

Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, Calif.

Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colo.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2020 Nov;72(5):1610-1617.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.01.052. Epub 2020 Mar 9.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Antegrade femoral artery access is often used for ipsilateral infrainguinal peripheral vascular intervention. However, the use of closure devices (CD) for antegrade access (AA) is still considered outside the instructions for use for most devices. We hypothesized that CD use for antegrade femoral access would not be associated with an increased odds of access site complications.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2010 to 2019 for infrainguinal peripheral vascular interventions performed via femoral AA. Patients who had a cutdown or multiple access sites were excluded. Cases were then stratified into whether a CD was used or not. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regressions controlling for hospital-level variation were used to examine the independent association between CD use and access site complications. A sensitivity analysis using coarsened exact matching was performed using factors different between treatment groups to reduce imbalance between the groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 11,562 cases were identified and 5693 (49.2%) used a CD. Patients treated with a CD were less likely to be white (74.1% vs 75.2%), have coronary artery disease (29.7% vs 33.4%), use aspirin (68.7% vs 72.4%), and have heparin reversal with protamine (15.5% vs 25.6%; all P < .05). CD patients were more likely to be obese (31.6% vs 27.0%), have an elective operation (82.6% vs 80.1%), ultrasound-guided access (75.5% vs 60.6%), and a larger access sheath (6.0 ± 1.0 F vs 5.5 ± 1.0 F; P < .05 for all). CD cases were less likely to develop any access site hematoma (2.55% vs 3.53%; P < .01) or a hematoma requiring reintervention (0.63% vs 1.26%; P < .01) and had no difference in access site stenosis or occlusion (0.30% vs 0.22%; P = .47) compared with no CD. On multivariable analysis, CD cases had significantly decreased odds of developing any access site hematoma (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.95) and a hematoma requiring intervention (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.81). A sensitivity analysis after coarsened exact matching confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationally representative sample, CD use for AA was associated with a lower odds of hematoma in selected patients. Extending the instructions for use indications for CDs to include femoral AA may decrease the incidence of access site complications, patient exposure to reintervention, and costs to the health care system.

摘要

目的

顺行股动脉入路常用于同侧下肢外周血管介入治疗。然而,大多数器械的使用说明书仍不推荐使用闭合装置(CD)进行顺行股动脉入路(AA)。我们假设 CD 用于顺行股动脉入路不会增加血管入路并发症的发生几率。

方法

从 2010 年到 2019 年,血管质量倡议(Vascular Quality Initiative)对通过股 AA 进行的下肢外周血管介入治疗进行了查询。排除了有切开或多个入路的患者。然后将病例分为是否使用 CD。使用控制医院层面差异的分层多变量逻辑回归来检查 CD 使用与血管入路并发症之间的独立关联。使用治疗组之间不同的因素进行了粗糙精确匹配的敏感性分析,以减少组间的不平衡。

结果

总体而言,共确定了 11562 例病例,其中 5693 例(49.2%)使用了 CD。使用 CD 的患者不太可能是白人(74.1% vs. 75.2%),患有冠心病(29.7% vs. 33.4%),使用阿司匹林(68.7% vs. 72.4%),并接受肝素逆转剂鱼精蛋白(15.5% vs. 25.6%;均 P<.05)。CD 患者更可能肥胖(31.6% vs. 27.0%),接受择期手术(82.6% vs. 80.1%),超声引导入路(75.5% vs. 60.6%),以及更大的血管鞘(6.0±1.0 F vs. 5.5±1.0 F;均 P<.05)。与无 CD 相比,CD 病例发生任何血管入路血肿(2.55% vs. 3.53%;P<.01)或需要再次干预的血肿(0.63% vs. 1.26%;P<.01)的几率较低,血管入路狭窄或闭塞的发生率无差异(0.30% vs. 0.22%;P=.47)。多变量分析显示,CD 病例发生任何血管入路血肿的几率显著降低(比值比,0.75;95%置信区间,0.59-0.95)和需要干预的血肿几率降低(比值比,0.56;95%置信区间,0.38-0.81)。在经过粗糙精确匹配的敏感性分析后,证实了这些发现。

结论

在这项具有全国代表性的样本中,AA 中 CD 的使用与选定患者血肿的几率降低相关。将 CD 的使用说明书适应证扩展到包括股 AA,可能会降低血管入路并发症、患者接受再次干预的几率以及对医疗保健系统的成本。

相似文献

1
Antegrade common femoral artery closure device use is associated with decreased complications.
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Nov;72(5):1610-1617.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.01.052. Epub 2020 Mar 9.
2
Closure device use for common femoral artery antegrade access is higher risk than retrograde access.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2021 Oct;76:49-58. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.03.009. Epub 2021 Apr 7.
3
Common femoral artery antegrade and retrograde approaches have similar access site complications.
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Apr;69(4):1160-1166.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.06.226. Epub 2018 Dec 4.
4
Arterial cutdown reduces complications after brachial access for peripheral vascular intervention.
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Jul;64(1):149-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.02.019. Epub 2016 Mar 23.
5
Larger Sheath Size for Infrainguinal Endovascular Intervention Is Associated With Minor but Not Major Morbidity or Mortality.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Oct;60:327-334.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.04.003. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
6
FemoSeal Device Use for Femoral Artery Closure by Different Techniques.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2018 Aug;51:18-24. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.02.016. Epub 2018 Apr 18.
7
Antegrade superficial femoral artery versus common femoral artery punctures for infrainguinal occlusive disease.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012 Sep;23(9):1160-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.06.006. Epub 2012 Jul 24.
8
Safety and Efficacy of Arterial Closure Devices in an Office-Based Angiosuite.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2018 Aug;51:10-17. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.02.011. Epub 2018 Apr 13.

引用本文的文献

1
Closure device use for common femoral artery antegrade access is higher risk than retrograde access.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2021 Oct;76:49-58. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.03.009. Epub 2021 Apr 7.

本文引用的文献

1
Larger Sheath Size for Infrainguinal Endovascular Intervention Is Associated With Minor but Not Major Morbidity or Mortality.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Oct;60:327-334.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.04.003. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
2
Anterograde or retrograde arterial access for diabetic limb revascularization.
Semin Vasc Surg. 2018 Jun-Dec;31(2-4):76-80. doi: 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2018.12.005. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
3
Common femoral artery antegrade and retrograde approaches have similar access site complications.
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Apr;69(4):1160-1166.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.06.226. Epub 2018 Dec 4.
4
A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites.
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Sep;68(3):887-899. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.019. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
5
Safety and Outcomes of Ipsilateral Antegrade Angioplasty for Femoropopliteal Disease.
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2018 Feb;52(2):93-97. doi: 10.1177/1538574417739762. Epub 2017 Dec 13.
7
MynxGrip for Closure of Antegrade Puncture After Peripheral Interventions With Same-Day Discharge.
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2017 Feb;51(2):67-71. doi: 10.1177/1538574416689424. Epub 2017 Jan 19.
8
Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 7;3(3):CD009541. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009541.pub2.

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