超声引导与手触诊在股动脉逆行置管中的比较:回顾性研究

E. Çelebioğlu, M. Sarıcaoğlu, A. Koca, Evren Özçınar, L. Yazıcıoğlu
{"title":"超声引导与手触诊在股动脉逆行置管中的比较:回顾性研究","authors":"E. Çelebioğlu, M. Sarıcaoğlu, A. Koca, Evren Özçınar, L. Yazıcıoğlu","doi":"10.5455/ajdi.20211122072917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The purpose of this study is to assess the success and complication rates of two different techniques used for retrograde femoral artery access. Methods: This retrospective study included angiographies performed by retrograde femoral artery access. Arterial punctures were performed with either ultrasound guided (group 1) or manual palpation (group 2) methods. Patients’ pulses were examined by a nurse practitioner and graded subjectively before preparing the puncture side (grade 0–3). Arterial puncture performed through a strong(3) or medium pulsed(2) artery was included in this study. The puncture side (right or left femoral), complications, average catheterization time calculated from patients’ notes, first-pass success rate, and the number of puncture attempts were analyzed. Sheath sizes, body mass index (BMI), and, vascular closure device usage after the angiographic procedure were also recorded and analyzed. Results: A total of 256 angiographies were found to be eligible; age, pulse grading, and puncture side distributions were similar ( p > 0.05). Mean puncture attempts to cathe-terize femoral arteries were 1.09 ± 0.09 and 1.25 ± 0.24 times, which took 1.49 ± 0.19 and 1.75 ± 0.25 minutes for group 1 and group 2, respectively, which were statistically significant ( p < 0.001). Complication rates were similar for both groups ( p = 0.561) and increased with BMI > 35 ( p = 0.003). Conclusion: Ultrasound guidance is comparable with the manual palpation method and is somewhat better in certain conditions. Thus, it should be considered as an option during routine retrograde femoral artery access. According to our results, even in arteries with strong pulses, first-pass success rate, average catheterization time, and puncture attempts were better with ultrasound guidance.","PeriodicalId":178697,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Diagnostic Imaging","volume":"18 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Ultrasound Guided and Manual Palpation Methods in Retrograde Femoral Artery Catheterization: A Retrospective Study\",\"authors\":\"E. Çelebioğlu, M. Sarıcaoğlu, A. Koca, Evren Özçınar, L. Yazıcıoğlu\",\"doi\":\"10.5455/ajdi.20211122072917\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The purpose of this study is to assess the success and complication rates of two different techniques used for retrograde femoral artery access. Methods: This retrospective study included angiographies performed by retrograde femoral artery access. Arterial punctures were performed with either ultrasound guided (group 1) or manual palpation (group 2) methods. Patients’ pulses were examined by a nurse practitioner and graded subjectively before preparing the puncture side (grade 0–3). Arterial puncture performed through a strong(3) or medium pulsed(2) artery was included in this study. The puncture side (right or left femoral), complications, average catheterization time calculated from patients’ notes, first-pass success rate, and the number of puncture attempts were analyzed. Sheath sizes, body mass index (BMI), and, vascular closure device usage after the angiographic procedure were also recorded and analyzed. Results: A total of 256 angiographies were found to be eligible; age, pulse grading, and puncture side distributions were similar ( p > 0.05). Mean puncture attempts to cathe-terize femoral arteries were 1.09 ± 0.09 and 1.25 ± 0.24 times, which took 1.49 ± 0.19 and 1.75 ± 0.25 minutes for group 1 and group 2, respectively, which were statistically significant ( p < 0.001). Complication rates were similar for both groups ( p = 0.561) and increased with BMI > 35 ( p = 0.003). Conclusion: Ultrasound guidance is comparable with the manual palpation method and is somewhat better in certain conditions. Thus, it should be considered as an option during routine retrograde femoral artery access. According to our results, even in arteries with strong pulses, first-pass success rate, average catheterization time, and puncture attempts were better with ultrasound guidance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":178697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Diagnostic Imaging\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Diagnostic Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5455/ajdi.20211122072917\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Diagnostic Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5455/ajdi.20211122072917","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是评估两种不同技术用于逆行股动脉通路的成功率和并发症发生率。方法:这项回顾性研究包括通过逆行股动脉通路进行血管造影。动脉穿刺采用超声引导(1组)和手触诊(2组)两种方法。在准备穿刺侧之前,由执业护士检查患者脉搏并主观评分(0-3级)。通过强(3)或中脉冲(2)动脉进行的动脉穿刺包括在本研究中。分析穿刺侧(右或左股)、并发症、患者病历计算的平均置管时间、一次通过成功率、穿刺次数。血管造影后的鞘大小、身体质量指数(BMI)和血管闭合装置的使用情况也被记录和分析。结果:符合条件的血管造影共256张;年龄、脉搏分级、穿刺侧分布相似(p > 0.05)。平均穿刺次数分别为1.09±0.09次和1.25±0.24次,1组和2组分别用时1.49±0.19和1.75±0.25 min,差异有统计学意义(p < 0.001)。两组并发症发生率相似(p = 0.561),且BMI > 35时并发症发生率增高(p = 0.003)。结论:超声引导与手触诊法具有可比性,在一定条件下效果更好。因此,在常规逆行股动脉入路时,应考虑将其作为一种选择。根据我们的研究结果,即使在脉搏较强的动脉中,超声引导下的首次通过成功率、平均置管时间和穿刺次数都更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Ultrasound Guided and Manual Palpation Methods in Retrograde Femoral Artery Catheterization: A Retrospective Study
Background: The purpose of this study is to assess the success and complication rates of two different techniques used for retrograde femoral artery access. Methods: This retrospective study included angiographies performed by retrograde femoral artery access. Arterial punctures were performed with either ultrasound guided (group 1) or manual palpation (group 2) methods. Patients’ pulses were examined by a nurse practitioner and graded subjectively before preparing the puncture side (grade 0–3). Arterial puncture performed through a strong(3) or medium pulsed(2) artery was included in this study. The puncture side (right or left femoral), complications, average catheterization time calculated from patients’ notes, first-pass success rate, and the number of puncture attempts were analyzed. Sheath sizes, body mass index (BMI), and, vascular closure device usage after the angiographic procedure were also recorded and analyzed. Results: A total of 256 angiographies were found to be eligible; age, pulse grading, and puncture side distributions were similar ( p > 0.05). Mean puncture attempts to cathe-terize femoral arteries were 1.09 ± 0.09 and 1.25 ± 0.24 times, which took 1.49 ± 0.19 and 1.75 ± 0.25 minutes for group 1 and group 2, respectively, which were statistically significant ( p < 0.001). Complication rates were similar for both groups ( p = 0.561) and increased with BMI > 35 ( p = 0.003). Conclusion: Ultrasound guidance is comparable with the manual palpation method and is somewhat better in certain conditions. Thus, it should be considered as an option during routine retrograde femoral artery access. According to our results, even in arteries with strong pulses, first-pass success rate, average catheterization time, and puncture attempts were better with ultrasound guidance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信