The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2012
Feasibility of 6 Fr intra-aortic balloon pumping via the femoral or brachial approach.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Fujii Toshiharu, Masuda Naoki, Ijichi Takeshi, Kamiyama Yoshinari, Tanaka Shigemitsu, Nakazawa Gaku, Shinozaki Norihiko, Matsukage Takashi, Ogata Nobuhiko, Ikari Yuji
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate safety and efficacy of new 6 Fr intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) system.
BACKGROUND: Access-site complications have been reported to increase adverse events following PCI. Some reports have shown access-site complications in conventional 8-Fr compatible IABP system. The new 6 Fr IABP system may reduce the complication rate due to the smaller size.
METHODS: We extracted medical records for patients who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention under prophylactic 6 Fr or 8 Fr IABP assistance from January 2006 to December 2009 at Tokai University School of Medicine. The clinical outcomes were compared between 6 Fr and 8 Fr or between transfemoral and transbrachial IABP.
RESULTS: A total of 42 cases were extracted, including 20 cases using 6 Fr IABP (47.6%) and 22 cases using 8 Fr IABP (52.4%). The 6 Fr IABP included 15 cases of transbrachial approach (75.0%) and 5 cases of transfemoral approach (25.0%). All cases of 8 Fr IABP were via transfemoral approach. The bedrest time was clearly shorter in the 6 Fr IABP group (75.8 ± 139.8 minutes vs 360.0 ± 104.7 minutes in the 8 Fr IABP group; P<.001). Bedrest time and duration of hospitalization were shorter in the transbrachial IABP group (0.0 ± 0.0 minutes and 1.0 days [interquartile range, 1.0- 2.0 days] vs 288.0 ± 107.3 minutes and 5.0 days in the transfemoral group [interquartile range, 3.0-8.0]; P<.001). Access-site complications were 0% with the 6 Fr system, but 13.6% with the 8 Fr IABP system.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the 6 Fr IABP system and its transbrachial application may be feasible because of lower complication rates.
BACKGROUND: Access-site complications have been reported to increase adverse events following PCI. Some reports have shown access-site complications in conventional 8-Fr compatible IABP system. The new 6 Fr IABP system may reduce the complication rate due to the smaller size.
METHODS: We extracted medical records for patients who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention under prophylactic 6 Fr or 8 Fr IABP assistance from January 2006 to December 2009 at Tokai University School of Medicine. The clinical outcomes were compared between 6 Fr and 8 Fr or between transfemoral and transbrachial IABP.
RESULTS: A total of 42 cases were extracted, including 20 cases using 6 Fr IABP (47.6%) and 22 cases using 8 Fr IABP (52.4%). The 6 Fr IABP included 15 cases of transbrachial approach (75.0%) and 5 cases of transfemoral approach (25.0%). All cases of 8 Fr IABP were via transfemoral approach. The bedrest time was clearly shorter in the 6 Fr IABP group (75.8 ± 139.8 minutes vs 360.0 ± 104.7 minutes in the 8 Fr IABP group; P<.001). Bedrest time and duration of hospitalization were shorter in the transbrachial IABP group (0.0 ± 0.0 minutes and 1.0 days [interquartile range, 1.0- 2.0 days] vs 288.0 ± 107.3 minutes and 5.0 days in the transfemoral group [interquartile range, 3.0-8.0]; P<.001). Access-site complications were 0% with the 6 Fr system, but 13.6% with the 8 Fr IABP system.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the 6 Fr IABP system and its transbrachial application may be feasible because of lower complication rates.