挑战围绕经皮肱动脉入路相关并发症的争议:系统回顾与元分析》。

Vascular and endovascular surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1177/15385744241278048
Khuzaima Khan, Eiman Amir, Omobolaji Akano, Joseph Borucki, Ahmad Al Thaher, Philip Stather, Tariq Ali
{"title":"挑战围绕经皮肱动脉入路相关并发症的争议:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Khuzaima Khan, Eiman Amir, Omobolaji Akano, Joseph Borucki, Ahmad Al Thaher, Philip Stather, Tariq Ali","doi":"10.1177/15385744241278048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endovascular therapy has become increasingly preferred in the diagnosis and treatment of various conditions. The choice of arterial access usually depends on the type of procedure being performed with most via the common femoral artery and increasingly via the radial artery. Percutaneous access via the brachial artery has however been approached with caution due to the perceived increased risk for development of complications. Percutaneous brachial artery access (pBAA) has insufficient evidence when compared to femoral and radial access, with no large-scale studies available. The objective of this study is to review the literature and report the clinical and radiological complications associated with pBAA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and Medline were searched for existing data on the complications associated with pBAA. Systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out on the data of 31 studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that the probability of post procedural haematoma was 4.76%, haemorrhage 1.43%, perforation 1.11% pseudoaneurysm 1.06%, spasm 0.9%, thrombus 0.55%, neuropathy 0.53%, occlusion 0.51%, ischaemia 0.37% and infection 0.24 %. Non-target vessel puncture, stenosis and stroke had a 0% incidence among the assessed population.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides evidence to support clinical decision making when it comes to the utility of pBAA in endovascular diagnosis or therapy. The results demonstrate that pBAA is relatively safe with a low incidence of serious complications and thereby provide the clinician with the option of an alternate access point when planning treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":94265,"journal":{"name":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenging the Controversy Surrounding Percutaneous Brachial Artery Access Related Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Khuzaima Khan, Eiman Amir, Omobolaji Akano, Joseph Borucki, Ahmad Al Thaher, Philip Stather, Tariq Ali\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15385744241278048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endovascular therapy has become increasingly preferred in the diagnosis and treatment of various conditions. The choice of arterial access usually depends on the type of procedure being performed with most via the common femoral artery and increasingly via the radial artery. Percutaneous access via the brachial artery has however been approached with caution due to the perceived increased risk for development of complications. Percutaneous brachial artery access (pBAA) has insufficient evidence when compared to femoral and radial access, with no large-scale studies available. The objective of this study is to review the literature and report the clinical and radiological complications associated with pBAA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and Medline were searched for existing data on the complications associated with pBAA. Systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out on the data of 31 studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that the probability of post procedural haematoma was 4.76%, haemorrhage 1.43%, perforation 1.11% pseudoaneurysm 1.06%, spasm 0.9%, thrombus 0.55%, neuropathy 0.53%, occlusion 0.51%, ischaemia 0.37% and infection 0.24 %. Non-target vessel puncture, stenosis and stroke had a 0% incidence among the assessed population.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides evidence to support clinical decision making when it comes to the utility of pBAA in endovascular diagnosis or therapy. The results demonstrate that pBAA is relatively safe with a low incidence of serious complications and thereby provide the clinician with the option of an alternate access point when planning treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vascular and endovascular surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vascular and endovascular surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744241278048\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744241278048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在诊断和治疗各种疾病时,血管内治疗越来越受到青睐。动脉入路的选择通常取决于手术的类型,大多数经股总动脉入路,也有越来越多的经桡动脉入路。然而,经皮肱动脉入路由于会增加并发症发生的风险,因此要慎重对待。与股动脉和桡动脉入路相比,经皮肱动脉入路(pBAA)的证据不足,也没有大规模的研究。本研究旨在回顾文献,并报告与经皮肱动脉入路相关的临床和放射学并发症:方法:通过EMBASE、EMCARE、CINAHL和Medline检索与pBAA相关并发症的现有数据。对 31 项研究的数据进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析:系统回顾和荟萃分析结果表明,术后血肿发生概率为 4.76%,出血 1.43%,穿孔 1.11%,假性动脉瘤 1.06%,痉挛 0.9%,血栓 0.55%,神经病变 0.53%,闭塞 0.51%,缺血 0.37%,感染 0.24%。在接受评估的人群中,非目标血管穿刺、血管狭窄和中风的发生率为 0%:这项研究为临床决策提供了证据,有助于确定 pBAA 在血管内诊断或治疗中的效用。研究结果表明,pBAA 相对安全,严重并发症的发生率较低,因此临床医生在制定治疗计划时可以选择另一种入路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenging the Controversy Surrounding Percutaneous Brachial Artery Access Related Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Endovascular therapy has become increasingly preferred in the diagnosis and treatment of various conditions. The choice of arterial access usually depends on the type of procedure being performed with most via the common femoral artery and increasingly via the radial artery. Percutaneous access via the brachial artery has however been approached with caution due to the perceived increased risk for development of complications. Percutaneous brachial artery access (pBAA) has insufficient evidence when compared to femoral and radial access, with no large-scale studies available. The objective of this study is to review the literature and report the clinical and radiological complications associated with pBAA.

Methods: EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and Medline were searched for existing data on the complications associated with pBAA. Systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out on the data of 31 studies.

Results: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that the probability of post procedural haematoma was 4.76%, haemorrhage 1.43%, perforation 1.11% pseudoaneurysm 1.06%, spasm 0.9%, thrombus 0.55%, neuropathy 0.53%, occlusion 0.51%, ischaemia 0.37% and infection 0.24 %. Non-target vessel puncture, stenosis and stroke had a 0% incidence among the assessed population.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence to support clinical decision making when it comes to the utility of pBAA in endovascular diagnosis or therapy. The results demonstrate that pBAA is relatively safe with a low incidence of serious complications and thereby provide the clinician with the option of an alternate access point when planning treatment.

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:481959085
Book学术官方微信