Comparação do Tempo de Fluoroscopia Durante Cateterismo Cardíaco pelas Vias Radial e Femoral

R. R. Barbosa, F. Cesar, Renato Giestas Serpa, Vinícius Fraga Mauro, J. Edson Ferreira Jr., Denis Moulin dos Reis Bayerl, Walkimar Ururay Gloria Veloso, R. Cesar, Pedro Abílio Ribeiro Reseck
{"title":"Comparação do Tempo de Fluoroscopia Durante Cateterismo Cardíaco pelas Vias Radial e Femoral","authors":"R. R. Barbosa, F. Cesar, Renato Giestas Serpa, Vinícius Fraga Mauro, J. Edson Ferreira Jr., Denis Moulin dos Reis Bayerl, Walkimar Ururay Gloria Veloso, R. Cesar, Pedro Abílio Ribeiro Reseck","doi":"10.1590/0104-1843000000057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The use of radial access in cardiac interventions is associated with reduced vascular complications, however it demands a longer learning curve and may increase fluoroscopy time. This study aimed to evaluate the fluoroscopy time as a surrogate marker of radiation exposure, during diagnostic cardiac catheterization by radial and femoral routes. Methods: Retrospective observational study including patients who underwent cardiac catheterization from July 2013 to October 2014. Radial and femoral groups were compared for total procedural time, fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy to procedural time ratio and vascular complications. Results: The study included 1,915 procedures, 11.2% of which performed by radial approach and 88.8%, by femoral approach. A male prevalence was found in the radial group (80% vs. 54.1%, p < 0.01), but age (61.6 ± 9.7 years vs. 62.4 ± 11.6 years, p = 0.13), total procedural time (8.7 ± 3.8 vs. 8.1 ± 4.1 minutes, p = 0.91), fluoroscopy time (4.8 ± 2.7 vs. 4.1 ± 2.6 minutes, p = 0.89), fluoroscopy/procedure time ratio (0.56 ± 0.24 vs. 0.49 ± 0.32, p = 0.89), and major complications (0.0% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.55) were similar between groups. Conclusions: The use of the transradial approach for diagnostic procedures by experienced operating physicians may be used with an acceptable total procedural time without increasing the radiation exposure of the patient and staff, and with a low incidence of complications.","PeriodicalId":101093,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva","volume":"50 1","pages":"343-348"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1843000000057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: The use of radial access in cardiac interventions is associated with reduced vascular complications, however it demands a longer learning curve and may increase fluoroscopy time. This study aimed to evaluate the fluoroscopy time as a surrogate marker of radiation exposure, during diagnostic cardiac catheterization by radial and femoral routes. Methods: Retrospective observational study including patients who underwent cardiac catheterization from July 2013 to October 2014. Radial and femoral groups were compared for total procedural time, fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy to procedural time ratio and vascular complications. Results: The study included 1,915 procedures, 11.2% of which performed by radial approach and 88.8%, by femoral approach. A male prevalence was found in the radial group (80% vs. 54.1%, p < 0.01), but age (61.6 ± 9.7 years vs. 62.4 ± 11.6 years, p = 0.13), total procedural time (8.7 ± 3.8 vs. 8.1 ± 4.1 minutes, p = 0.91), fluoroscopy time (4.8 ± 2.7 vs. 4.1 ± 2.6 minutes, p = 0.89), fluoroscopy/procedure time ratio (0.56 ± 0.24 vs. 0.49 ± 0.32, p = 0.89), and major complications (0.0% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.55) were similar between groups. Conclusions: The use of the transradial approach for diagnostic procedures by experienced operating physicians may be used with an acceptable total procedural time without increasing the radiation exposure of the patient and staff, and with a low incidence of complications.
桡动脉和股动脉导管透视时间比较
背景:在心脏介入手术中使用径向通路可减少血管并发症,但它需要较长的学习曲线,并可能增加透视时间。本研究旨在评估透视时间作为放射暴露的替代标记物,在桡骨和股动脉心导管诊断过程中。方法:回顾性观察研究纳入2013年7月至2014年10月行心导管置入术的患者。比较桡骨组和股骨组手术总时间、透视时间、透视时间与手术时间之比及血管并发症。结果:该研究包括1,915例手术,其中11.2%采用桡骨入路,88.8%采用股骨入路。男性患病率发现径向组(80%比54.1%,p < 0.01),但年龄(61.6±9.7年和62.4±11.6年,p = 0.13),总程序时间(8.7±3.8和8.1±4.1分钟,p = 0.91),透视时间(4.8±2.7和4.1±2.6分钟,p = 0.89),透视/过程时间比率(0.56±0.24和0.49±0.32,p = 0.89),和主要并发症(0.0%比0.3%,p = 0.55)类似的团体之间。结论:由经验丰富的手术医师使用经桡骨入路进行诊断手术,总手术时间可接受,不增加患者和工作人员的辐射暴露,并发症发生率低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信