心房颤动消融术后静脉血管闭合系统与八字形缝合--STYLE-AF 研究

R Tilz, M Feher, J Vogler, K Bode, A Duta, A Ortolan, Lisbeth Delgado Lopez, M Küchler, R Mamaev, E Lyan, Philipp Sommer, M Braun, V Sciacca, T Demming, V Maslova, KH Kuck, C -H Heeger, C Eitel, SS Popescu
{"title":"心房颤动消融术后静脉血管闭合系统与八字形缝合--STYLE-AF 研究","authors":"R Tilz, M Feher, J Vogler, K Bode, A Duta, A Ortolan, Lisbeth Delgado Lopez, M Küchler, R Mamaev, E Lyan, Philipp Sommer, M Braun, V Sciacca, T Demming, V Maslova, KH Kuck, C -H Heeger, C Eitel, SS Popescu","doi":"10.1093/europace/euae105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Simplified ablation technologies for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are increasingly performed worldwide. One of the most common complications following PVI are vascular access-related complications. Lately, venous closure systems (VCS) were introduced into clinical practice, aiming to reduce the time of bedrest, to increase the patients’ comfort and to reduce vascular access-related complications. Aims To compare the safety and efficacy of using a VCS to achieve haemostasis following single shot PVI to the actual standard of care (figure-of-eight suture and manual compression (MC)). Methods This is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label trial performed at 3 German centres. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo haemostasis either by means of VCS (VCS group) or of a figure-of-eight suture and MC (F8 group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to ambulation, while the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major periprocedural adverse events until hospital discharge. Results A total of 125 patients were randomized. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The VCS group showed a shorter time to ambulation (109.0 (82.0, 160.0) vs. 269.0 (243.8, 340.5) min; p<0.001), shorter time to haemostasis (1 (1, 2) vs. 5 (2, 10) min; p<0.001) and shorter time to discharge eligibility (270 (270, 270) vs. 340 (300, 458) min; p<0.001). No major vascular access related complication was reported in either group. A trend towards a lower incidence of minor vascular access related complications on the day of procedure was observed in the VCS group (7 (11.1%) vs. 15 (24.2%); p=0.063) as compared to the control group. Conclusion Following AF ablation, the use of a VCS results in a significantly shorter time to ambulation, time to haemostasis and time to discharge eligibility. No major vascular access related complications were identified. The use of MC and a figure-of-eight suture showed a trend towards a higher incidence of minor vascular access related complications.","PeriodicalId":11720,"journal":{"name":"EP Europace","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Venous Vascular Closure System Versus Figure-of-Eight Suture Following Atrial Fibrillation Ablation – The STYLE-AF Study\",\"authors\":\"R Tilz, M Feher, J Vogler, K Bode, A Duta, A Ortolan, Lisbeth Delgado Lopez, M Küchler, R Mamaev, E Lyan, Philipp Sommer, M Braun, V Sciacca, T Demming, V Maslova, KH Kuck, C -H Heeger, C Eitel, SS Popescu\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/europace/euae105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Simplified ablation technologies for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are increasingly performed worldwide. One of the most common complications following PVI are vascular access-related complications. Lately, venous closure systems (VCS) were introduced into clinical practice, aiming to reduce the time of bedrest, to increase the patients’ comfort and to reduce vascular access-related complications. Aims To compare the safety and efficacy of using a VCS to achieve haemostasis following single shot PVI to the actual standard of care (figure-of-eight suture and manual compression (MC)). Methods This is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label trial performed at 3 German centres. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo haemostasis either by means of VCS (VCS group) or of a figure-of-eight suture and MC (F8 group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to ambulation, while the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major periprocedural adverse events until hospital discharge. Results A total of 125 patients were randomized. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The VCS group showed a shorter time to ambulation (109.0 (82.0, 160.0) vs. 269.0 (243.8, 340.5) min; p<0.001), shorter time to haemostasis (1 (1, 2) vs. 5 (2, 10) min; p<0.001) and shorter time to discharge eligibility (270 (270, 270) vs. 340 (300, 458) min; p<0.001). No major vascular access related complication was reported in either group. A trend towards a lower incidence of minor vascular access related complications on the day of procedure was observed in the VCS group (7 (11.1%) vs. 15 (24.2%); p=0.063) as compared to the control group. Conclusion Following AF ablation, the use of a VCS results in a significantly shorter time to ambulation, time to haemostasis and time to discharge eligibility. No major vascular access related complications were identified. The use of MC and a figure-of-eight suture showed a trend towards a higher incidence of minor vascular access related complications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EP Europace\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EP Europace\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EP Europace","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 用于肺静脉隔离(PVI)的简化消融技术在全球越来越多地得到应用。肺静脉隔离术后最常见的并发症之一是血管通路相关并发症。最近,静脉闭合系统(VCS)被引入临床实践,旨在减少卧床时间、提高患者舒适度并减少血管通路相关并发症。目的 比较使用 VCS 实现单针 PVI 后止血与实际标准护理(八字形缝合和人工压迫 (MC))的安全性和有效性。方法 这是一项在 3 个德国中心进行的前瞻性、多中心、随机对照、开放标签试验。患者按 1:1 随机分配,分别接受 VCS(VCS 组)或八字形缝合和 MC(F8 组)止血。主要疗效终点是患者康复时间,而主要安全性终点是患者出院前的主要围手术期不良事件发生率。结果 共有125名患者接受了随机治疗。两组患者的基线特征相似。VCS 组患者的活动时间更短(109.0 (82.0, 160.0) 分钟 vs. 269.0 (243.8, 340.5) 分钟;p<0.001),止血时间更短(1 (1, 2) 分钟 vs. 5 (2, 10) 分钟;p<0.001),出院时间更短(270 (270, 270) 分钟 vs. 340 (300, 458) 分钟;p<0.001)。两组患者均未报告与血管通路相关的重大并发症。与对照组相比,观察到 VCS 组在手术当天的轻微血管通路相关并发症发生率呈下降趋势(7 (11.1%) vs. 15 (24.2%); p=0.063)。结论 心房颤动消融术后,使用 VCS 可显著缩短下床活动时间、止血时间和出院时间。未发现与血管通路相关的重大并发症。使用 MC 和八字形缝合线时,轻微血管通路相关并发症的发生率呈上升趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Venous Vascular Closure System Versus Figure-of-Eight Suture Following Atrial Fibrillation Ablation – The STYLE-AF Study
Background Simplified ablation technologies for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are increasingly performed worldwide. One of the most common complications following PVI are vascular access-related complications. Lately, venous closure systems (VCS) were introduced into clinical practice, aiming to reduce the time of bedrest, to increase the patients’ comfort and to reduce vascular access-related complications. Aims To compare the safety and efficacy of using a VCS to achieve haemostasis following single shot PVI to the actual standard of care (figure-of-eight suture and manual compression (MC)). Methods This is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label trial performed at 3 German centres. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo haemostasis either by means of VCS (VCS group) or of a figure-of-eight suture and MC (F8 group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to ambulation, while the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major periprocedural adverse events until hospital discharge. Results A total of 125 patients were randomized. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The VCS group showed a shorter time to ambulation (109.0 (82.0, 160.0) vs. 269.0 (243.8, 340.5) min; p<0.001), shorter time to haemostasis (1 (1, 2) vs. 5 (2, 10) min; p<0.001) and shorter time to discharge eligibility (270 (270, 270) vs. 340 (300, 458) min; p<0.001). No major vascular access related complication was reported in either group. A trend towards a lower incidence of minor vascular access related complications on the day of procedure was observed in the VCS group (7 (11.1%) vs. 15 (24.2%); p=0.063) as compared to the control group. Conclusion Following AF ablation, the use of a VCS results in a significantly shorter time to ambulation, time to haemostasis and time to discharge eligibility. No major vascular access related complications were identified. The use of MC and a figure-of-eight suture showed a trend towards a higher incidence of minor vascular access related complications.
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
期刊最新文献
High lead-related complication rate with MicroPort Vega active fixation pacing leads. Dual chamber versus single chamber pacemaker in patients in sinus rhythm with an atrioventricular block: a nationwide cohort study Ventricular Arrhythmias in Acute Heart Failure. A Clinical Consensus Statement of the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care Association (ACVC), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC Enhancing Origin Prediction: Deep Learning Model for Diagnosing Premature Ventricular Contractions with Dual-Rhythm Analysis Focused on Cardiac Rotation A computational study on the influence of antegrade accessory pathway location on the 12-lead electrocardiogram in Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1