Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024
Ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided axillary vein puncture for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: a meta-analysis enrolling 1257 patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Vetta Giampaolo, Parlavecchio Antonio, Wright Jennifer, Magnocavallo Michele, Marcon Lorenzo, Doundoulakis Ioannis, Scacciavillani Roberto, Sorgente Antonio, Pannone Luigi, Almorad Alexandre, Sieira Juan, Audiat Charles, Nakasone Kazutaka, Bala Gezim, Ströker Erwin, Overeinder Ingrid, Rossi Pietro, Sarkozy Andrea, Chierchia Gian-Battista, de Asmundis Carlo, Della Rocca Domenico Giovanni
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound-guided (Echo-AVP) and Fluoroscopy-guided Axillary Vein Puncture (Fluoro-AVP) are both acknowledged as safe and effective techniques for transvenous implantation of leads for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Nonetheless, it is still debated which of the two techniques has a better safety and efficacy profile. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP versus Fluoro-AVP for CIEDs implantation.
METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases up to May 15th, 2024, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary efficacy endpoint was acute procedural success and the primary safety endpoint was a composite endpoint of pneumothorax, pocket hematoma/bleeding, pocket infection and inadvertent arterial puncture. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Odds Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) with relative 95% Confidence Interval (CI).
RESULTS: Overall, 4 studies were included, which enrolled 1257 patients (Echo-AVP: 373 patients; Fluoro-AVP: 884 patients). Echo-AVP led to a significant reduction in the primary safety endpoint (OR: 0.41; p = 0.0009), risk of inadvertent arterial puncture (OR: 0.29; p = 0.003) and fluoroscopy time ( MD: -105.02; p = 0.008). No differences were found between Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP for acute procedural success (OR: 0.77; p = 0.27), pneumothorax (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), pocket hematoma/bleeding (OR: 0.68; p = 0.30), pocket infection (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), procedural time (MD: 1.99; p = 0.65), success rate at first attempt (OR: 1.25; p = 0.34) and venous access time (MD: -0. 25; p = 0.99).
CONCLUSION: Echo-AVP proved to reduce significantly the primary safety endpoint, inadvertent arterial puncture and fluoroscopy time compared to Fluoro-AVP.
METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases up to May 15th, 2024, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary efficacy endpoint was acute procedural success and the primary safety endpoint was a composite endpoint of pneumothorax, pocket hematoma/bleeding, pocket infection and inadvertent arterial puncture. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Odds Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) with relative 95% Confidence Interval (CI).
RESULTS: Overall, 4 studies were included, which enrolled 1257 patients (Echo-AVP: 373 patients; Fluoro-AVP: 884 patients). Echo-AVP led to a significant reduction in the primary safety endpoint (OR: 0.41; p = 0.0009), risk of inadvertent arterial puncture (OR: 0.29; p = 0.003) and fluoroscopy time ( MD: -105.02; p = 0.008). No differences were found between Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP for acute procedural success (OR: 0.77; p = 0.27), pneumothorax (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), pocket hematoma/bleeding (OR: 0.68; p = 0.30), pocket infection (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), procedural time (MD: 1.99; p = 0.65), success rate at first attempt (OR: 1.25; p = 0.34) and venous access time (MD: -0. 25; p = 0.99).
CONCLUSION: Echo-AVP proved to reduce significantly the primary safety endpoint, inadvertent arterial puncture and fluoroscopy time compared to Fluoro-AVP.