Locatelli Giuseppe, Donisi Luca, Mircoli Luca, Colombo Federico, Barbieri Lucia, Tumminello Gabriele, Carugo Stefano, Ruscica Massimiliano, Vicenzi Marco
Dyspnea Lab, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Department of Cardio-Thoracic-Vascular Diseases, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20154 Milan, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2023 Aug 18;12(16):5382. doi: 10.3390/jcm12165382.
Antecubital access for right heart catheterization (RHC) is a widespread technique, even though there is a need to clarify if there are differences and significant advantages compared to proximal vein access. To pursue this issue, we retrospectively identified patients who underwent RHC in our clinic over a 7 year period (between January 2015 and December 2022). We revised demographic, anthropometric, and procedural data, including the fluoroscopy time, the radiation exposure, and the use of guidewires. The presence of any complications was also assessed. In patients with antecubital access, the fluoroscopy time and the radiation exposure were lower compared to proximal vein access (6 vs. 3 min, mean difference of 2 min, CI 95% 1-4 min, < 0.001 and 61 vs. 30 cGy/m, mean difference 64 cGy/m, CI 95% 50-77, < 0.001). The number of patients requiring the use of at least one guidewire was lower in the group undergoing RHC through antecubital access compared to proximal vein access (55% vs. 43%, = 0.01). The feasibility was optimal, as just 0.9% of procedures switched from antecubital to femoral access, with a negligible rate of complications. The choice of the antecubital site exhibits advantages, e.g., a shorter fluoroscopy time, a reduced radiation dose, and a lower average number of guidewires used compared to proximal vein access.
尽管有必要明确与近端静脉入路相比是否存在差异和显著优势,但肘前入路进行右心导管检查(RHC)仍是一种广泛应用的技术。为了探讨这个问题,我们回顾性地确定了在7年期间(2015年1月至2022年12月)在我们诊所接受RHC的患者。我们查阅了人口统计学、人体测量学和操作数据,包括透视时间、辐射暴露以及导丝的使用情况。还评估了是否存在任何并发症。与近端静脉入路相比,采用肘前入路的患者透视时间和辐射暴露更低(分别为6分钟对3分钟,平均差异2分钟,95%置信区间1 - 4分钟,<0.001;以及61 cGy/m对30 cGy/m,平均差异64 cGy/m,95%置信区间50 - 77,<0.001)。与近端静脉入路相比,通过肘前入路进行RHC的患者中需要使用至少一根导丝的人数更少(55%对43%,P = 0.01)。可行性极佳,因为只有0.9%的操作从肘前入路转为股动脉入路,并发症发生率可忽略不计。与近端静脉入路相比,选择肘前入路具有优势,例如透视时间更短、辐射剂量降低以及平均使用的导丝数量更少。