MedElevator
Войти в исследования Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026
Jugular Versus Femoral Venous Access for Leadless Pacemaker Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Giannino Federico, Vetta Giampaolo, Cardì Carlo, Caminiti Rodolfo, Crea Pasquale, Dattilo Giuseppe, Sbriglione Riccardo, Lombardo Luciana, Coluccia Giovanni, Palmisano Pietro, Foti Rosario, Parlavecchio Antonio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have been shown to reduce complications compared with conventional transvenous pacing. Transfemoral venous access (FA) is the standard implantation approach; however, the transjugular approach (JA) has recently emerged as an alternative strategy, but comparative evidence remains limited. Therefore, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing JA and FA for LPMs implantation in terms of electrical performance, procedural efficiency, and complications.
METHODS: All studies comparing JA and FA for LPMs were systematically identified. Pooled analyses were performed for pacing threshold, sensed R-wave amplitude, impedance, total procedural time, fluoroscopy duration, and procedural complications.
RESULTS: Three observational studies were included. No significant differences were observed between FA and JA in mean pacing threshold (MD 0.05 ms; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.12), mean sensed R-wave amplitude (MD 0.31 mV; 95% CI -0.51 to 1.14), or impedance (MD 45.79 Ω; 95% CI -27.03 to 118.61). Total procedural time was comparable between approaches (MD -0.44 min; 95% CI -8.47 to 7.60). JA was associated with a significant reduction in fluoroscopy time compared with FA (MD 2.73 min; 95% CI 0.66 to 4.81). JA also significantly reduced overall procedural complications (1.8% vs. 15%; OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.39) and wound care-related adverse events (0% vs. 14%; OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.36). No differences were observed in device dislodgement, pericardial effusion, or emergent device removal.
CONCLUSIONS: JA provides comparable electrical performance to FA while reducing fluoroscopy exposure and access-related complications, supporting its use as a safe alternative for LPMs implantation.
METHODS: All studies comparing JA and FA for LPMs were systematically identified. Pooled analyses were performed for pacing threshold, sensed R-wave amplitude, impedance, total procedural time, fluoroscopy duration, and procedural complications.
RESULTS: Three observational studies were included. No significant differences were observed between FA and JA in mean pacing threshold (MD 0.05 ms; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.12), mean sensed R-wave amplitude (MD 0.31 mV; 95% CI -0.51 to 1.14), or impedance (MD 45.79 Ω; 95% CI -27.03 to 118.61). Total procedural time was comparable between approaches (MD -0.44 min; 95% CI -8.47 to 7.60). JA was associated with a significant reduction in fluoroscopy time compared with FA (MD 2.73 min; 95% CI 0.66 to 4.81). JA also significantly reduced overall procedural complications (1.8% vs. 15%; OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.39) and wound care-related adverse events (0% vs. 14%; OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.36). No differences were observed in device dislodgement, pericardial effusion, or emergent device removal.
CONCLUSIONS: JA provides comparable electrical performance to FA while reducing fluoroscopy exposure and access-related complications, supporting its use as a safe alternative for LPMs implantation.