Suppr超能文献

经颈静脉临时心脏起搏器置入术是否安全有效?

Is transjugular insertion of a temporary pacemaker a safe and effective approach?

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kangwon National University Hospital, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Korea.

Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 May 12;15(5):e0233129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233129. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Temporary pacemakers (TPMs) are usually inserted in an emergency situation. However, there are few reports available regarding which route of access is best or what the most preferred approach is currently in tertiary hospitals. This study aimed to compare procedure times, complication rates, and indications for temporary pacing between the transjugular and transfemoral approaches to TPM placement. We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent TPM placement. Indications; procedure times; and rates of complications including localized infection, any bleeding, and pacing wire repositioning rates were analyzed. A total of 732 patients (361 treated via the transjugular approach and 371 treated via the transfemoral approach) were included. Complete atrioventricular block was the most common cause of TPM placement in both groups, but sick sinus syndrome was especially common in the transjugular approach group. Separately, procedure time was significantly shorter in the transjugular approach group (9.0 ± 8.0 minutes vs. 11.9 ± 9.7 minutes; P < 0.001). Overall complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups, and longer duration of temporary pacing was a risk factor for repositioning. The risk of reposition was significantly increased when the temporary pacing was continued more than 5 days and 3 days in the transjugular approach group and the transfemoral approach group, respectively. The transjugular approach should be considered if the TPM is required for more than 3 days.

摘要

临时起搏器(TPM)通常在紧急情况下插入。然而,关于哪种进入途径最好或目前在三级医院中最受欢迎的方法,只有少数报道。本研究旨在比较 TPM 放置的经颈静脉和经股动脉途径的手术时间、并发症发生率和起搏指征。我们分析了连续接受 TPM 放置的患者。分析了适应证、手术时间以及包括局部感染、任何出血和起搏线重新定位在内的并发症发生率。共纳入 732 例患者(经颈静脉途径治疗 361 例,经股动脉途径治疗 371 例)。完全性房室传导阻滞是两组中 TPM 放置的最常见原因,但病态窦房结综合征在经颈静脉途径组中更为常见。此外,经颈静脉途径组的手术时间明显缩短(9.0 ± 8.0 分钟比 11.9 ± 9.7 分钟;P < 0.001)。两组的总体并发症发生率无显著差异,且临时起搏时间较长是重新定位的危险因素。当经颈静脉途径组和经股动脉途径组的临时起搏持续时间超过 5 天和 3 天时,重新定位的风险显著增加。如果需要超过 3 天的 TPM,则应考虑经颈静脉途径。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/654f/7217466/98e05d832b9d/pone.0233129.g001.jpg

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