Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The Use of a Handheld Ultrasound Device to Guide the Axillary Vein Access during Pacemaker and Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation. A Feasibility Study.
Sassone, Biagio; Simeti, Giuseppe; Virzì, Santo; Pasanisi, Giovanni; Muser, Daniele.
Afiliação
  • Sassone B; Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy.
  • Simeti G; Department of Emergency, Division of Cardiology, SS.ma Annunziata Hospital, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Ferrara, 44042 Cento, Ferrara, Italy.
  • Virzì S; Department of Emergency, Division of Cardiology, Delta Hospital, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Ferrara, 44023 Lagosanto, Ferrara, Italy.
  • Pasanisi G; Department of Emergency, Division of Cardiology, SS.ma Annunziata Hospital, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Ferrara, 44042 Cento, Ferrara, Italy.
  • Muser D; Department of Emergency, Division of Cardiology, SS.ma Annunziata Hospital, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Ferrara, 44042 Cento, Ferrara, Italy.
Rev Cardiovasc Med ; 23(8): 258, 2022 Aug.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39076618
ABSTRACT

Background:

Although ultrasound guidance for axillary vein (AV) access (USGAVA) has been described as a reliable technique for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, no data is available on the use of handheld ultrasound devices (HUD) in such a setting.

Objective:

We investigated the feasibility of using a HUD for USGAVA in patients referred to our Institution for CIED implantation.

Methods:

The procedure details of 80 consecutive patients undergoing USGAVA (Group-1) from June 2020 to June 2021 were prospectively collected and compared to those of an age and sex-matched cohort of 91 patients (Group-2) who had undergone AV access with the traditional venipuncture guided by fluoroscopic landmarks.

Results:

The two groups were comparable for the success rate of venous access (92.5% versus 93.4%, p = 0.82), complication rate (1.3% versus 0.9%, p = 1.0), and procedure time (71 ± 32 min versus 70 ± 29 min, p = 0.9). However, Group-2 had a longer X-ray exposure time (7.6 ± 8.4 min versus 5.7 ± 7.3 min, p = 0.03). In Group-1, the univariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the AV diameter was associated with successful USGAVA (odds ratio = 3.34, 95% confidence interval 1.47-7.59, p < 0.01), with a 3-fold increase of probability of success per each 1 mm increase in the AV diameter.

Conclusions:

USGAVA using a HUD for CIED implantation is a feasible, effective, and safe technique; moreover, it saves X-ray exposure time without lengthening the implant procedure time.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article