在冠状窦导管置入方面,枕静脉入路是颈内静脉入路的实用替代方案

IF 2.2 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Haruwo Tashiro MD, Ken Terata MD, PhD, Ryosuke Kato MD, Hiyu Wakabayashi MD, Hidehiro Iwakawa MD, PhD, Hiroyuki Watanabe MD, PhD
{"title":"在冠状窦导管置入方面,枕静脉入路是颈内静脉入路的实用替代方案","authors":"Haruwo Tashiro MD,&nbsp;Ken Terata MD, PhD,&nbsp;Ryosuke Kato MD,&nbsp;Hiyu Wakabayashi MD,&nbsp;Hidehiro Iwakawa MD, PhD,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Watanabe MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/joa3.13110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Insertion of electrode catheters into the coronary sinus (CS) through the right internal jugular vein (RIJV) carries risks of pneumothorax and severe hematoma formation. This study was performed to compare the safety and feasibility of catheterization through the left cubital superficial vein versus the RIJV.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This prospective nonrandomized study involved consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation from September 2021 to February 2023. Blind puncture techniques were used in the left cubital vein group; ultrasound-guided insertion was performed in the RIJV group. The success rates of sheath insertion and CS catheterization, the procedure and fluoroscopy times of CS cannulation, and complications were compared between groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The left cubital vein group comprised 152 patients, and the RIJV group comprised 58 patients. The sheath insertion success rate was significantly lower in the cubital vein group than in the RIJV group (84.9% vs 100%, respectively; <i>p</i> = .0008). In the cubital vein group, blind puncture attempts failed in 20 patients; three patients developed guidewire-induced venous injury. One arterial puncture occurred in the RIJV group. After successful sheath insertion, no significant differences were observed in the CS cannulation success rate (97% vs 100%, <i>p</i> = .55), procedure time (median [range], 93 [51–174] vs 74 [44–129] s; <i>p</i> = .19), or fluoroscopy time (median [range], 66 [36–134] vs 48 [30–92] s; <i>p</i> = .17). No serious complications requiring procedural discontinuation occurred.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The left cubital vein approach is practical, offering a viable alternative to the RIJV approach.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arrhythmia","volume":"40 4","pages":"991-997"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.13110","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cubital vein access provides a practical alternative to internal jugular vein access for coronary sinus catheter placement\",\"authors\":\"Haruwo Tashiro MD,&nbsp;Ken Terata MD, PhD,&nbsp;Ryosuke Kato MD,&nbsp;Hiyu Wakabayashi MD,&nbsp;Hidehiro Iwakawa MD, PhD,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Watanabe MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/joa3.13110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Insertion of electrode catheters into the coronary sinus (CS) through the right internal jugular vein (RIJV) carries risks of pneumothorax and severe hematoma formation. This study was performed to compare the safety and feasibility of catheterization through the left cubital superficial vein versus the RIJV.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This prospective nonrandomized study involved consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation from September 2021 to February 2023. Blind puncture techniques were used in the left cubital vein group; ultrasound-guided insertion was performed in the RIJV group. The success rates of sheath insertion and CS catheterization, the procedure and fluoroscopy times of CS cannulation, and complications were compared between groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The left cubital vein group comprised 152 patients, and the RIJV group comprised 58 patients. The sheath insertion success rate was significantly lower in the cubital vein group than in the RIJV group (84.9% vs 100%, respectively; <i>p</i> = .0008). In the cubital vein group, blind puncture attempts failed in 20 patients; three patients developed guidewire-induced venous injury. One arterial puncture occurred in the RIJV group. After successful sheath insertion, no significant differences were observed in the CS cannulation success rate (97% vs 100%, <i>p</i> = .55), procedure time (median [range], 93 [51–174] vs 74 [44–129] s; <i>p</i> = .19), or fluoroscopy time (median [range], 66 [36–134] vs 48 [30–92] s; <i>p</i> = .17). No serious complications requiring procedural discontinuation occurred.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The left cubital vein approach is practical, offering a viable alternative to the RIJV approach.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Arrhythmia\",\"volume\":\"40 4\",\"pages\":\"991-997\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.13110\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Arrhythmia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.13110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arrhythmia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.13110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过右侧颈内静脉(RIJV)将电极导管插入冠状窦(CS)存在气胸和严重血肿形成的风险。这项前瞻性非随机研究涉及 2021 年 9 月至 2023 年 2 月期间接受导管消融术的连续患者。左眶静脉组采用盲穿技术;RIJV组在超声引导下插入导管。两组患者的鞘插入成功率和CS导管插入成功率、CS插管过程和透视时间以及并发症进行了比较。立方静脉组的鞘插入成功率明显低于 RIJV 组(分别为 84.9% vs 100%;P = 0.0008)。在立方静脉组中,20 名患者的盲穿刺尝试失败;3 名患者出现导丝引起的静脉损伤。RIJV 组发生了一次动脉穿刺。成功插入鞘管后,CS 插管成功率(97% vs 100%,P = .55)、手术时间(中位数[范围],93 [51-174] 秒 vs 74 [44-129] 秒;P = .19)或透视时间(中位数[范围],66 [36-134] 秒 vs 48 [30-92] 秒;P = .17)均无明显差异。左侧肘静脉入路非常实用,是 RIJV 入路的可行替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Cubital vein access provides a practical alternative to internal jugular vein access for coronary sinus catheter placement

Cubital vein access provides a practical alternative to internal jugular vein access for coronary sinus catheter placement

Background

Insertion of electrode catheters into the coronary sinus (CS) through the right internal jugular vein (RIJV) carries risks of pneumothorax and severe hematoma formation. This study was performed to compare the safety and feasibility of catheterization through the left cubital superficial vein versus the RIJV.

Methods

This prospective nonrandomized study involved consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation from September 2021 to February 2023. Blind puncture techniques were used in the left cubital vein group; ultrasound-guided insertion was performed in the RIJV group. The success rates of sheath insertion and CS catheterization, the procedure and fluoroscopy times of CS cannulation, and complications were compared between groups.

Results

The left cubital vein group comprised 152 patients, and the RIJV group comprised 58 patients. The sheath insertion success rate was significantly lower in the cubital vein group than in the RIJV group (84.9% vs 100%, respectively; p = .0008). In the cubital vein group, blind puncture attempts failed in 20 patients; three patients developed guidewire-induced venous injury. One arterial puncture occurred in the RIJV group. After successful sheath insertion, no significant differences were observed in the CS cannulation success rate (97% vs 100%, p = .55), procedure time (median [range], 93 [51–174] vs 74 [44–129] s; p = .19), or fluoroscopy time (median [range], 66 [36–134] vs 48 [30–92] s; p = .17). No serious complications requiring procedural discontinuation occurred.

Conclusion

The left cubital vein approach is practical, offering a viable alternative to the RIJV approach.

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
Journal of Arrhythmia
Journal of Arrhythmia CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
127
审稿时长
45 weeks
×
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