JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2024
The Safety and Efficacy of Epicardial Carbon Dioxide Insufflation Compared With Conventional Epicardial Access.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Chaumont Corentin, Oraii Alireza, Garcia Fermin C, Supple Gregory E, Santangeli Pasquale, Kumareswaran Ramanan, Dixit Sanjay, Markman Timothy M, Schaller Robert D, Zado Erica S, Guandalini Gustavo S, Lin David, Riley Michael P, Shivamurthy Poojita, Enriquez Andres, Epstein Andrew E, Deo Rajat, Nazarian Saman, Callans David J, Frankel David S, Anselme Frederic, Marchlinski Francis E, Hyman Matthew C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Epicardial (Epi) access is commonly required during ventricular tachycardia ablation. Conventional Epi (ConvEpi) access targets a "dry" pericardial space presenting technical challenges and risk of complications. Recently, intentional puncture of coronary venous branches with Epi carbon dioxide insufflation (EpiCO2) has been described as a technique to improve Epi access. The safety of this technique relative to conventional methods remains unproven.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the feasibility and safety of EpiCO2 to ConvEpi access.
METHODS: All patients at a high-volume center undergoing Epi access between January 2021 and December 2023 were included and grouped according to ConvEpi or EpiCO2 approach. Access technique was according to the discretion of the operator.
RESULTS: Epi access was attempted in 153 cases by 17 different operators (80 ConvEpi vs 73 EpiCO2). There was no difference in success rate whether the ConvEpi or EpiCO2 approach was used (76 [95%] cases vs 67 [91.8%] cases; P = 0.4). Total Epi access time was shorter in the ConvEpi group compared with the EpiCO2 group (16.3 ± 11.6 minutes vs 26.9 ± 12.7 minutes; P < 0.001), though the total procedure duration was similar. Major Epi access-related complications occurred in only the ConvEpi group (6 [7.5%] ConvEpi vs 0 [0%] EpiCo2; P = 0.02). Bleeding ≥80 mL was more frequently observed following ConvEpi access (14 [17.5%] cases vs 4 [5.5%] cases; P = 0.02). After adjusting for age, repeat Epi access, and antithrombotic therapy, EpiCO2 was associated with a reduction in bleeding ≥80 mL (OR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08-0.89; P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: EpiCO2 access is associated with lower rates of major complication and bleeding when compared with ConvEpi access.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the feasibility and safety of EpiCO2 to ConvEpi access.
METHODS: All patients at a high-volume center undergoing Epi access between January 2021 and December 2023 were included and grouped according to ConvEpi or EpiCO2 approach. Access technique was according to the discretion of the operator.
RESULTS: Epi access was attempted in 153 cases by 17 different operators (80 ConvEpi vs 73 EpiCO2). There was no difference in success rate whether the ConvEpi or EpiCO2 approach was used (76 [95%] cases vs 67 [91.8%] cases; P = 0.4). Total Epi access time was shorter in the ConvEpi group compared with the EpiCO2 group (16.3 ± 11.6 minutes vs 26.9 ± 12.7 minutes; P < 0.001), though the total procedure duration was similar. Major Epi access-related complications occurred in only the ConvEpi group (6 [7.5%] ConvEpi vs 0 [0%] EpiCo2; P = 0.02). Bleeding ≥80 mL was more frequently observed following ConvEpi access (14 [17.5%] cases vs 4 [5.5%] cases; P = 0.02). After adjusting for age, repeat Epi access, and antithrombotic therapy, EpiCO2 was associated with a reduction in bleeding ≥80 mL (OR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08-0.89; P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: EpiCO2 access is associated with lower rates of major complication and bleeding when compared with ConvEpi access.