Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2011
Evaluation of femoral approach to coronary sinus catheterisation in electrophysiological and ablation procedures: Single centre experience.
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.
Atty Osama Abdel, Morsy Mohamed, Gallagher Mark M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It has been reported that the cannulation of coronary sinus (CS) from the femoral approach is safer than the traditional subclavian approach but is associated with a lower rate of success. We aimed to test the validity of this claim.
METHOD: We evaluated retrospectively 1320 consecutive patients who underwent electrophysiological study (EPS) or ablation over a period of three years using a prospectively collected data. In cases requiring CS cannulation, it was attempted first from the femoral approach, switching if necessary to a subclavian approach when the femoral route failed.
RESULTS: Out of 1320 patients, 1165 (88.3%) required CS cannulation. The CS was successfully cannulated from the femoral approach in 99.3% of the cases in which it was attempted. One patient (0.09%) developed transient first degree atrioventricular block during an ablation procedure for AV nodal re-entrant tachycardia during cannulation of the CS that resolved within 3 min. Femoral access failed in 8 patients. In 4 of these cases, the procedure was concluded using CS cannulation via subclavian or jugular venous access. In the other 4 cases, the procedure was concluded successfully without CS cannulation, including an AF ablation in which CS cannulation proved impossible by either subclavian or femoral approach.
CONCLUSION: Femoral access can be used for CS cannulation with a high rate of procedural success in the vast majority of patients undergoing EPS and ablation. This approach is safe, and associated with a high rate of procedural success.
METHOD: We evaluated retrospectively 1320 consecutive patients who underwent electrophysiological study (EPS) or ablation over a period of three years using a prospectively collected data. In cases requiring CS cannulation, it was attempted first from the femoral approach, switching if necessary to a subclavian approach when the femoral route failed.
RESULTS: Out of 1320 patients, 1165 (88.3%) required CS cannulation. The CS was successfully cannulated from the femoral approach in 99.3% of the cases in which it was attempted. One patient (0.09%) developed transient first degree atrioventricular block during an ablation procedure for AV nodal re-entrant tachycardia during cannulation of the CS that resolved within 3 min. Femoral access failed in 8 patients. In 4 of these cases, the procedure was concluded using CS cannulation via subclavian or jugular venous access. In the other 4 cases, the procedure was concluded successfully without CS cannulation, including an AF ablation in which CS cannulation proved impossible by either subclavian or femoral approach.
CONCLUSION: Femoral access can be used for CS cannulation with a high rate of procedural success in the vast majority of patients undergoing EPS and ablation. This approach is safe, and associated with a high rate of procedural success.