Hellenic journal of cardiology : HJC = Hellenike kardiologike epitheorese · 2024
Comparison of different venous access ways for right heart catheterization-a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Genske Florian, Rawish Elias, Macherey-Meyer Sascha, Büchel Carina, Dejanovikj Momir, Jurczyk Dominik, Schulten-Baumer Julia, Marquetand Christoph, Stiermaier Thomas, Eitel Ingo, Rosenkranz Stephan, Frerker Christian, Schmidt Tobias
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Right heart catheterization (RHC) is a common diagnostic tool and of special importance in the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Until today, there have been no clear instructions or guidelines on which venous access to prefer. This meta-analysis assessed whether the choice of the venous access site for elective RHC has an impact on procedural or clinical outcomes.
METHODS: A structured literature search was performed. Single-arm reports and controlled trials reporting event data were eligible. The primary endpoint was a composite of access-related and overall complications.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies, including 6509 RHC procedures, were eligible. The results were analyzed in two groups. The first group compared central venous access (CVA; n = 2072) with peripheral venous access (PVA; n = 2680) and included only multi-arm studies (n = 12, C/P comparison). In the second group, all studies (n = 19, threeway comparison) were assessed to compare the three individual access ways. The overall complication rate was low at 1.0% (n = 68). The primary endpoint in the C/P comparison occurred significantly less for PVA than for CVA (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.004). In the threeway comparison, PVA had a significantly lower complication rate than femoral access (0.3% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.04). Jugular access had the numerically highest complication rate (2.0%), but the difference was not significant compared to peripheral (0.3%; p = 0.29) or femoral access (1.1%; p = 0.32).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that PVA for RHC has a significantly lower complication rate than CVA. There was a low level of certainty and high heterogeneity. This pooled data analysis indicated PVA as the primary venous access for RHC.
METHODS: A structured literature search was performed. Single-arm reports and controlled trials reporting event data were eligible. The primary endpoint was a composite of access-related and overall complications.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies, including 6509 RHC procedures, were eligible. The results were analyzed in two groups. The first group compared central venous access (CVA; n = 2072) with peripheral venous access (PVA; n = 2680) and included only multi-arm studies (n = 12, C/P comparison). In the second group, all studies (n = 19, threeway comparison) were assessed to compare the three individual access ways. The overall complication rate was low at 1.0% (n = 68). The primary endpoint in the C/P comparison occurred significantly less for PVA than for CVA (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.004). In the threeway comparison, PVA had a significantly lower complication rate than femoral access (0.3% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.04). Jugular access had the numerically highest complication rate (2.0%), but the difference was not significant compared to peripheral (0.3%; p = 0.29) or femoral access (1.1%; p = 0.32).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that PVA for RHC has a significantly lower complication rate than CVA. There was a low level of certainty and high heterogeneity. This pooled data analysis indicated PVA as the primary venous access for RHC.