Stavros Spiliopoulos, Spyridon Prountzos, Stavros Grigoriadis, Athanasios Diamantopoulos, Ioannis Paraskevopoulos
{"title":"ESR要点:动脉血管接入和闭合装置--欧洲心血管和介入放射学会的实践建议。","authors":"Stavros Spiliopoulos, Spyridon Prountzos, Stavros Grigoriadis, Athanasios Diamantopoulos, Ioannis Paraskevopoulos","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11053-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Vascular access is the initial, very important, step of endovascular procedures. Various access sites include the common femoral artery, brachial artery, radial artery, popliteal artery, and distal tibial vessels (pedal arteries). Successful arterial access requires advanced knowledge of anatomy, as well as proper training and experience. Today, vascular access should be obtained using real-time, ultrasound guidance to reduce access time, patient discomfort, and puncture-related complications including dissection, arteriovenous communication, and bleeding. Nevertheless, high-level evidence to support this recommendation in peripheral procedures is limited and level A data are mainly derived from randomized cardiac trials investigating only radial and femoral access. Vascular closure devices (VCDs) for femoral access can be broadly categorized as active closure devices, compression assist devices, and external/topical hemostasis devices. There is high-level evidence demonstrating that their use is related to less time for ambulation and increased patient satisfaction. However, available data failed to clearly demonstrate a benefit in complications compared to standard manual compression in peripheral endovascular arterial procedures, and thrombotic and infectious complications reported following VCD use remain an issue. Heterogeneity noted in the literature, caused by the vast variety of devices, access sites, sheath sizes, clinical scenarios, and procedures, poses difficulties in data analysis and future study design. As a result, an individualized VCD use is currently suggested for ≥ 5 Fr femoral artery access not only to reduce time to hemostasis and ambulation and to improve patient comfort, but also to reduce bleeding complications in cases of femoral access with increased bleeding risk, deranged coagulation, and large-bore access, though a high level of evidence to support this later recommendation is limited. KEY POINTS: US guidance is strongly recommended for femoral access and is mandatory to obtain more challenging access. The use of VCDs for femoral hemostasis is generally safe, effective, and currently supported by level I evidence. Proper training and correct VCD choice, based on the patient's individual characteristics, are imperative to optimize outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"1858-1867"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ESR Essentials: arterial vascular access and closure devices-practice recommendations by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe.\",\"authors\":\"Stavros Spiliopoulos, Spyridon Prountzos, Stavros Grigoriadis, Athanasios Diamantopoulos, Ioannis Paraskevopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-024-11053-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Vascular access is the initial, very important, step of endovascular procedures. Various access sites include the common femoral artery, brachial artery, radial artery, popliteal artery, and distal tibial vessels (pedal arteries). Successful arterial access requires advanced knowledge of anatomy, as well as proper training and experience. Today, vascular access should be obtained using real-time, ultrasound guidance to reduce access time, patient discomfort, and puncture-related complications including dissection, arteriovenous communication, and bleeding. Nevertheless, high-level evidence to support this recommendation in peripheral procedures is limited and level A data are mainly derived from randomized cardiac trials investigating only radial and femoral access. Vascular closure devices (VCDs) for femoral access can be broadly categorized as active closure devices, compression assist devices, and external/topical hemostasis devices. There is high-level evidence demonstrating that their use is related to less time for ambulation and increased patient satisfaction. However, available data failed to clearly demonstrate a benefit in complications compared to standard manual compression in peripheral endovascular arterial procedures, and thrombotic and infectious complications reported following VCD use remain an issue. Heterogeneity noted in the literature, caused by the vast variety of devices, access sites, sheath sizes, clinical scenarios, and procedures, poses difficulties in data analysis and future study design. As a result, an individualized VCD use is currently suggested for ≥ 5 Fr femoral artery access not only to reduce time to hemostasis and ambulation and to improve patient comfort, but also to reduce bleeding complications in cases of femoral access with increased bleeding risk, deranged coagulation, and large-bore access, though a high level of evidence to support this later recommendation is limited. KEY POINTS: US guidance is strongly recommended for femoral access and is mandatory to obtain more challenging access. The use of VCDs for femoral hemostasis is generally safe, effective, and currently supported by level I evidence. Proper training and correct VCD choice, based on the patient's individual characteristics, are imperative to optimize outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1858-1867\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11053-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11053-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
血管通路是血管内手术的第一步,也是非常重要的一步。各种入路部位包括股总动脉、肱动脉、桡动脉、腘动脉和胫骨远端血管(足底动脉)。成功的动脉通路需要先进的解剖学知识以及适当的培训和经验。如今,血管通路应在实时超声引导下进行,以减少通路时间、患者不适感和穿刺相关并发症,包括剥离、动静脉沟通和出血。然而,在外周手术中支持这一建议的高级别证据非常有限,A 级数据主要来自仅研究桡动脉和股动脉通路的随机心脏试验。用于股动脉入路的血管闭合装置(VCD)可大致分为主动闭合装置、压迫辅助装置和外部/局部止血装置。有大量证据表明,使用这些设备可以缩短患者的行走时间,并提高患者的满意度。然而,现有数据未能清楚地证明,在外周血管内动脉手术中,与标准的人工压迫相比,VCD 能有效减少并发症的发生,而使用 VCD 后出现的血栓和感染并发症仍是一个问题。由于设备、入路部位、鞘的尺寸、临床场景和手术方式多种多样,文献中提到的异质性给数据分析和未来的研究设计带来了困难。因此,目前建议对≥ 5 Fr 的股动脉入路使用个体化 VCD,这不仅能缩短止血和下床时间,提高患者舒适度,还能在股动脉入路出血风险增加、凝血功能紊乱和大口径入路的情况下减少出血并发症,但支持这一建议的证据水平有限。要点:强烈建议在股骨入路时使用 US 导引,在获得更具挑战性的入路时必须使用 US 导引。使用 VCD 进行股骨止血通常是安全、有效的,目前有 I 级证据支持。根据患者的个体特征进行适当培训和正确选择 VCD 是优化治疗效果的当务之急。
ESR Essentials: arterial vascular access and closure devices-practice recommendations by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe.
Vascular access is the initial, very important, step of endovascular procedures. Various access sites include the common femoral artery, brachial artery, radial artery, popliteal artery, and distal tibial vessels (pedal arteries). Successful arterial access requires advanced knowledge of anatomy, as well as proper training and experience. Today, vascular access should be obtained using real-time, ultrasound guidance to reduce access time, patient discomfort, and puncture-related complications including dissection, arteriovenous communication, and bleeding. Nevertheless, high-level evidence to support this recommendation in peripheral procedures is limited and level A data are mainly derived from randomized cardiac trials investigating only radial and femoral access. Vascular closure devices (VCDs) for femoral access can be broadly categorized as active closure devices, compression assist devices, and external/topical hemostasis devices. There is high-level evidence demonstrating that their use is related to less time for ambulation and increased patient satisfaction. However, available data failed to clearly demonstrate a benefit in complications compared to standard manual compression in peripheral endovascular arterial procedures, and thrombotic and infectious complications reported following VCD use remain an issue. Heterogeneity noted in the literature, caused by the vast variety of devices, access sites, sheath sizes, clinical scenarios, and procedures, poses difficulties in data analysis and future study design. As a result, an individualized VCD use is currently suggested for ≥ 5 Fr femoral artery access not only to reduce time to hemostasis and ambulation and to improve patient comfort, but also to reduce bleeding complications in cases of femoral access with increased bleeding risk, deranged coagulation, and large-bore access, though a high level of evidence to support this later recommendation is limited. KEY POINTS: US guidance is strongly recommended for femoral access and is mandatory to obtain more challenging access. The use of VCDs for femoral hemostasis is generally safe, effective, and currently supported by level I evidence. Proper training and correct VCD choice, based on the patient's individual characteristics, are imperative to optimize outcomes.
期刊介绍:
European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field.
This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies.
From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.