MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.jacep.2026.01.001

Медицинская библиотека · JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2026

Safety of Carbon Dioxide-Facilitated vs Conventional Epicardial Access: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Castello-Branco Beatriz, Wilnes Bruno, Sroubek Jakub, Higuchi Koji, Lee Justin, Hussein Ayman, Saliba Walid, Kanj Mohamed, Taigen Tyler, Younis Arwa, Bhargava Mandeep, Wazni Oussama, Carmo André A L, Santangeli Pasquale

СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous epicardial access has been increasingly adopted in clinical practice, particularly for ventricular tachycardia ablation. "Dry" epicardial puncture (Dry-EPI) carries a considerable risk of access-related complications, even with modified techniques. Pericardial carbon dioxide insufflation (EpiCO2) has emerged as a promising alternative, potentially enhancing safety by increasing anatomical clearance between pericardial layers.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the safety and efficacy of EpiCO2 vs traditional Dry-EPI techniques through systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched using medical subject heading terms "epicardial access," "carbon dioxide insufflation," "complications," and similar key words. Random-effects meta-analyses of proportions and means, subgroup analyses, and meta-regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 119 studies (8,784 procedures) were included; most (95.0%) were of moderate or high quality. Ventricular tachycardia ablation was the main access indication (n = 7,178). EpiCO2 was used in 493 procedures (5.6%) and Dry-EPI in 8,291 (94.4%). Among 5,786 Dry-EPI cases with specified needle type, 5,184 (89.6%) used a large-bore needle and 602 (10.4%) a micropuncture needle. EpiCO2 was associated with significantly fewer complications requiring surgery compared with Dry-EPI (0.24% [95% CI: 0.00-0.93] vs 1.55% [95% CI: 1.27-1.86], P < 0.010), large-bore needle (0.24% [95% CI: 0.00%-0.93%] vs 1.58% [95% CI: 1.23-1.97], P < 0.010), and micropuncture (0.24 [95% CI: 0.00-0.93] vs 1.66% [95% CI: 0.60-3.17], P = 0.020). Inadvertent ventricular puncture was also lower with EpiCO2 compared with Dry-EPI (0.28% [95% CI: 0.00-1.00] vs 3.17% [95% CI: 2.36-4.10], P < 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with Dry-EPI, EpiCO2 was associated with significantly lower risk of inadvertent ventricular puncture and complications requiring surgery, supporting broader clinical adoption.

Для цитирования: Castello-Branco Beatriz, Wilnes Bruno, Sroubek Jakub, Higuchi Koji, Lee Justin, Hussein Ayman, Saliba Walid, Kanj Mohamed, Taigen Tyler, Younis Arwa, Bhargava Mandeep, Wazni Oussama, Carmo André A L, Santangeli Pasquale. Safety of Carbon Dioxide-Facilitated vs Conventional Epicardial Access: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. JACC. Clinical electrophysiology. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2026.01.001.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.