Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2019
Heparin reversal with protamine sulfate is not required in atrial fibrillation ablation with suture hemostasis.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное 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.
Yasar Senan J, Bickel Trent, Zhang Shiyang, Akkaya Mehmet, Aznaurov Sam G, Krishnan Kousik, Cuculich Phillip S, Gautam Sandeep
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The utility of protamine sulfate for heparin reversal in catheter-based atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is unclear when using the suture closure technique for vascular hemostasis.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to address if protamine sulfate use for heparin reversal reduces vascular access complications in AF catheter ablation when suture techniques are used for postprocedural vascular hemostasis.
METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter observational study of 294 consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation for AF with subsequent vascular access hemostasis by means of a figure-of-eight suture or stopcock technique. A total of 156 patients received protamine for heparin reversal before sheath removal while 138 patients did not receive protamine. The two groups were compared for procedural activated clotting time (ACT), access site complications, and duration of hospital stay.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable in both groups. Despite higher ACT before venous sheath removal in patients not receiving protamine (288.0 ± 44.3 vs 153.9 ± 32.0 seconds; P < .001), there was no significant difference in groin complications, postoperative thromboembolic events, or duration of hospital stay between the two groups. Suture failure requiring manual compression was rarely observed in this cohort (0.34%).
CONCLUSION: With modern vascular access and sheath management techniques, for patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF, simple suture closure techniques can obviate the need for protamine administration to safely achieve hemostasis after removal of vascular sheaths.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to address if protamine sulfate use for heparin reversal reduces vascular access complications in AF catheter ablation when suture techniques are used for postprocedural vascular hemostasis.
METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter observational study of 294 consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation for AF with subsequent vascular access hemostasis by means of a figure-of-eight suture or stopcock technique. A total of 156 patients received protamine for heparin reversal before sheath removal while 138 patients did not receive protamine. The two groups were compared for procedural activated clotting time (ACT), access site complications, and duration of hospital stay.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable in both groups. Despite higher ACT before venous sheath removal in patients not receiving protamine (288.0 ± 44.3 vs 153.9 ± 32.0 seconds; P < .001), there was no significant difference in groin complications, postoperative thromboembolic events, or duration of hospital stay between the two groups. Suture failure requiring manual compression was rarely observed in this cohort (0.34%).
CONCLUSION: With modern vascular access and sheath management techniques, for patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF, simple suture closure techniques can obviate the need for protamine administration to safely achieve hemostasis after removal of vascular sheaths.