右心导管检查中不同静脉通路的比较 - 一项荟萃分析。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Florian Genske, Elias Rawish, Sascha Macherey-Meyer, Carina Büchel, Momir Dejanovikj, Dominik Jurczyk, Julia Schulten-Baumer, Christoph Marquetand, Thomas Stiermaier, Ingo Eitel, Stephan Rosenkranz, Christian Frerker, Tobias Schmidt
{"title":"右心导管检查中不同静脉通路的比较 - 一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Florian Genske, Elias Rawish, Sascha Macherey-Meyer, Carina Büchel, Momir Dejanovikj, Dominik Jurczyk, Julia Schulten-Baumer, Christoph Marquetand, Thomas Stiermaier, Ingo Eitel, Stephan Rosenkranz, Christian Frerker, Tobias Schmidt","doi":"10.1016/j.hjc.2024.07.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Right heart catheterization (RHC) is a common diagnostic tool and of special importance in the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Until today, there have been no clear instructions or guidelines on which venous access to prefer. This meta-analysis assessed whether the choice of the venous access site for elective RHC has an impact on procedural or clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A structured literature search was performed. Single-arm reports and controlled trials reporting event data were eligible. The primary endpoint was a composite of access-related and overall complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies, including 6509 RHC procedures, were eligible. The results were analyzed in two groups. The first group compared central venous access (CVA; n = 2072) with peripheral venous access (PVA; n = 2680) and included only multi-arm studies (n = 12, C/P comparison). In the second group, all studies (n = 19, threeway comparison) were assessed to compare the three individual access ways. The overall complication rate was low at 1.0% (n = 68). The primary endpoint in the C/P comparison occurred significantly less for PVA than for CVA (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.004). In the threeway comparison, PVA had a significantly lower complication rate than femoral access (0.3% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.04). Jugular access had the numerically highest complication rate (2.0%), but the difference was not significant compared to peripheral (0.3%; p = 0.29) or femoral access (1.1%; p = 0.32).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis showed that PVA for RHC has a significantly lower complication rate than CVA. There was a low level of certainty and high heterogeneity. This pooled data analysis indicated PVA as the primary venous access for RHC.</p>","PeriodicalId":55062,"journal":{"name":"Hellenic Journal of Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of different venous access ways for right heart catheterization-a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Florian Genske, Elias Rawish, Sascha Macherey-Meyer, Carina Büchel, Momir Dejanovikj, Dominik Jurczyk, Julia Schulten-Baumer, Christoph Marquetand, Thomas Stiermaier, Ingo Eitel, Stephan Rosenkranz, Christian Frerker, Tobias Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hjc.2024.07.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Right heart catheterization (RHC) is a common diagnostic tool and of special importance in the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Until today, there have been no clear instructions or guidelines on which venous access to prefer. This meta-analysis assessed whether the choice of the venous access site for elective RHC has an impact on procedural or clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A structured literature search was performed. Single-arm reports and controlled trials reporting event data were eligible. The primary endpoint was a composite of access-related and overall complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies, including 6509 RHC procedures, were eligible. The results were analyzed in two groups. The first group compared central venous access (CVA; n = 2072) with peripheral venous access (PVA; n = 2680) and included only multi-arm studies (n = 12, C/P comparison). In the second group, all studies (n = 19, threeway comparison) were assessed to compare the three individual access ways. The overall complication rate was low at 1.0% (n = 68). The primary endpoint in the C/P comparison occurred significantly less for PVA than for CVA (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.004). In the threeway comparison, PVA had a significantly lower complication rate than femoral access (0.3% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.04). Jugular access had the numerically highest complication rate (2.0%), but the difference was not significant compared to peripheral (0.3%; p = 0.29) or femoral access (1.1%; p = 0.32).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis showed that PVA for RHC has a significantly lower complication rate than CVA. There was a low level of certainty and high heterogeneity. This pooled data analysis indicated PVA as the primary venous access for RHC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hellenic Journal of Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hellenic Journal of Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjc.2024.07.008\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hellenic Journal of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjc.2024.07.008","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","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

背景:右心导管检查(RHC)是一种常见的诊断工具,对肺动脉高压(PH)的诊断尤为重要。迄今为止,关于选择哪条静脉通路还没有明确的说明或指南:这项荟萃分析评估了选择性 RHC 的静脉通路部位是否会对手术或临床结果产生影响:方法:进行结构化文献检索。报告事件数据的单臂报告和对照试验均符合条件。主要终点是入路相关并发症和总体并发症的综合:共有 19 项研究符合条件,包括 6,509 例 RHC 手术。研究结果分为两组进行分析。第一组比较了中心静脉通路(CVA;n=2,072)和外周静脉通路(PVA;n=2,680),仅包括多臂研究(n=12,C/P比较)。第二组对所有研究(n=19,三途径比较)进行了评估,以比较三种不同的入路方式。总体并发症发生率较低,为 1.0%(样本数=68)。在C/P比较中,PVA的主要终点发生率明显低于CVA(0.1% vs. 1.2%; p=0.004)。在三方比较中,PVA 的并发症发生率明显低于股动脉入路(0.3% 对 1.1%;P=0.04)。颈静脉入路的并发症发生率最高(2.0%),但与外周入路(0.3%;P=0.29)或股动脉入路(1.1%;P=0.32)相比,差异并不显著:这项荟萃分析表明,PVA用于RHC的并发症发生率明显低于CVA。确定性较低,异质性较高。这项汇总数据分析表明,PVA 是 RHC 的主要静脉通路。
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 different venous access ways for right heart catheterization-a meta-analysis.

Objectives: Right heart catheterization (RHC) is a common diagnostic tool and of special importance in the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Until today, there have been no clear instructions or guidelines on which venous access to prefer. This meta-analysis assessed whether the choice of the venous access site for elective RHC has an impact on procedural or clinical outcomes.

Methods: A structured literature search was performed. Single-arm reports and controlled trials reporting event data were eligible. The primary endpoint was a composite of access-related and overall complications.

Results: Nineteen studies, including 6509 RHC procedures, were eligible. The results were analyzed in two groups. The first group compared central venous access (CVA; n = 2072) with peripheral venous access (PVA; n = 2680) and included only multi-arm studies (n = 12, C/P comparison). In the second group, all studies (n = 19, threeway comparison) were assessed to compare the three individual access ways. The overall complication rate was low at 1.0% (n = 68). The primary endpoint in the C/P comparison occurred significantly less for PVA than for CVA (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.004). In the threeway comparison, PVA had a significantly lower complication rate than femoral access (0.3% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.04). Jugular access had the numerically highest complication rate (2.0%), but the difference was not significant compared to peripheral (0.3%; p = 0.29) or femoral access (1.1%; p = 0.32).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that PVA for RHC has a significantly lower complication rate than CVA. There was a low level of certainty and high heterogeneity. This pooled data analysis indicated PVA as the primary venous access for RHC.

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
Hellenic Journal of Cardiology
Hellenic Journal of Cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.30%
发文量
86
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: The Hellenic Journal of Cardiology (International Edition, ISSN 1109-9666) is the official journal of the Hellenic Society of Cardiology and aims to publish high-quality articles on all aspects of cardiovascular medicine. A primary goal is to publish in each issue a number of original articles related to clinical and basic research. Many of these will be accompanied by invited editorial comments. Hot topics, such as molecular cardiology, and innovative cardiac imaging and electrophysiological mapping techniques, will appear frequently in the journal in the form of invited expert articles or special reports. The Editorial Committee also attaches great importance to subjects related to continuing medical education, the implementation of guidelines and cost effectiveness in cardiology.
×
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