与锁骨下静脉穿刺相比,改良塞尔丁格技术头静脉穿刺植入心脏电子设备的安全性和效率

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Marie-Christine Weidauer, Enzo Knüpfer, Jörg Lottermoser, Usama Alkomi, Steffen Schoen, Carsten Wunderlich, Marian Christoph, Alexander Francke
{"title":"与锁骨下静脉穿刺相比,改良塞尔丁格技术头静脉穿刺植入心脏电子设备的安全性和效率","authors":"Marie-Christine Weidauer,&nbsp;Enzo Knüpfer,&nbsp;Jörg Lottermoser,&nbsp;Usama Alkomi,&nbsp;Steffen Schoen,&nbsp;Carsten Wunderlich,&nbsp;Marian Christoph,&nbsp;Alexander Francke","doi":"10.1002/clc.24327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The establishment of venous access is one of the driving factors for complications during implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators (cardiac implantable electronic devices [CIED]). Recently, a novel approach of accessing the cephalic vein for CIED by cephalic vein puncture (CVP) using a modified Seldinger technique has been described, promising high success rates and simplified handling with steeper learning curves. In this single-center registry, we analyzed the safety and efficiency of CVP to SVP access after defining CVP as the primary access route in our center.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 229 consecutive patients receiving a CIED were included in the registry. Sixty-one patients were implanted by primary or bail-out SVP; 168 patients received primary cephalic preparation and CVP was performed when possible, using a hydrophilic transradial sheath.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Implantation of at least one lead via CVP was successful in 151 of 168 patients (90%), and implantation of all leads was possible in 122 of 168 patients (72.6%). Total implantation times and fluoroscopy times and doses did not differ between CVP and SVP implantations. Pneumothorax occurred in 0/122 patients implanted via CVP alone, but 8/107 (7.5%) patients received at least one lead via SVP.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our data confirms high success rates of the CVP for CIED implantation. Moreover, this method can be used without significantly prolonging the total procedure time or applying fluoroscopy dose compared to the highly efficient SVP while showing lower overall complication rates.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287195/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and Efficiency of Cephalic Vein Puncture by Modified Seldinger Technique Compared to Subclavian Vein Puncture for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices\",\"authors\":\"Marie-Christine Weidauer,&nbsp;Enzo Knüpfer,&nbsp;Jörg Lottermoser,&nbsp;Usama Alkomi,&nbsp;Steffen Schoen,&nbsp;Carsten Wunderlich,&nbsp;Marian Christoph,&nbsp;Alexander Francke\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/clc.24327\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>The establishment of venous access is one of the driving factors for complications during implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators (cardiac implantable electronic devices [CIED]). Recently, a novel approach of accessing the cephalic vein for CIED by cephalic vein puncture (CVP) using a modified Seldinger technique has been described, promising high success rates and simplified handling with steeper learning curves. In this single-center registry, we analyzed the safety and efficiency of CVP to SVP access after defining CVP as the primary access route in our center.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 229 consecutive patients receiving a CIED were included in the registry. Sixty-one patients were implanted by primary or bail-out SVP; 168 patients received primary cephalic preparation and CVP was performed when possible, using a hydrophilic transradial sheath.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Implantation of at least one lead via CVP was successful in 151 of 168 patients (90%), and implantation of all leads was possible in 122 of 168 patients (72.6%). Total implantation times and fluoroscopy times and doses did not differ between CVP and SVP implantations. Pneumothorax occurred in 0/122 patients implanted via CVP alone, but 8/107 (7.5%) patients received at least one lead via SVP.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our data confirms high success rates of the CVP for CIED implantation. Moreover, this method can be used without significantly prolonging the total procedure time or applying fluoroscopy dose compared to the highly efficient SVP while showing lower overall complication rates.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287195/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.24327\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.24327","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:静脉通路的建立是心脏起搏器和除颤器(心脏植入式电子装置 [CIED])植入过程中出现并发症的驱动因素之一。最近,一种使用改良 Seldinger 技术通过头静脉穿刺(CVP)进入头静脉以植入 CIED 的新方法被描述出来,该方法有望获得较高的成功率,并简化操作,缩短学习曲线。在这项单中心登记中,我们分析了本中心将 CVP 定义为主要入路后,CVP 与 SVP 入路的安全性和效率:共有 229 名连续接受 CIED 的患者被纳入登记。61名患者通过主SVP或保外SVP进行植入;168名患者接受了主头面部准备,并在可能的情况下使用亲水性经桡动脉鞘进行CVP:结果:168 例患者中有 151 例(90%)成功通过 CVP 植入至少一个导联,168 例患者中有 122 例(72.6%)成功植入所有导联。CVP 和 SVP 植入术的总植入时间、透视时间和剂量没有差异。0/122例仅通过CVP植入的患者发生了气胸,但8/107例(7.5%)患者通过SVP植入了至少一个导联:我们的数据证实了 CVP 植入 CIED 的成功率很高。此外,与高效的 SVP 相比,这种方法不会明显延长手术总时间或增加透视剂量,而且总体并发症发生率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Safety and Efficiency of Cephalic Vein Puncture by Modified Seldinger Technique Compared to Subclavian Vein Puncture for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Safety and Efficiency of Cephalic Vein Puncture by Modified Seldinger Technique Compared to Subclavian Vein Puncture for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Introduction

The establishment of venous access is one of the driving factors for complications during implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators (cardiac implantable electronic devices [CIED]). Recently, a novel approach of accessing the cephalic vein for CIED by cephalic vein puncture (CVP) using a modified Seldinger technique has been described, promising high success rates and simplified handling with steeper learning curves. In this single-center registry, we analyzed the safety and efficiency of CVP to SVP access after defining CVP as the primary access route in our center.

Methods

A total of 229 consecutive patients receiving a CIED were included in the registry. Sixty-one patients were implanted by primary or bail-out SVP; 168 patients received primary cephalic preparation and CVP was performed when possible, using a hydrophilic transradial sheath.

Results

Implantation of at least one lead via CVP was successful in 151 of 168 patients (90%), and implantation of all leads was possible in 122 of 168 patients (72.6%). Total implantation times and fluoroscopy times and doses did not differ between CVP and SVP implantations. Pneumothorax occurred in 0/122 patients implanted via CVP alone, but 8/107 (7.5%) patients received at least one lead via SVP.

Conclusion

Our data confirms high success rates of the CVP for CIED implantation. Moreover, this method can be used without significantly prolonging the total procedure time or applying fluoroscopy dose compared to the highly efficient SVP while showing lower overall complication rates.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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