Giampaolo Vetta, Antonio Parlavecchio, Jennifer Wright, Michele Magnocavallo, Lorenzo Marcon, Ioannis Doundoulakis, Roberto Scacciavillani, Antonio Sorgente, Luigi Pannone, Alexandre Almorad, Juan Sieira, Charles Audiat, Kazutaka Nakasone, Gezim Bala, Erwin Ströker, Ingrid Overeinder, Pietro Rossi, Andrea Sarkozy, Gian-Battista Chierchia, Carlo de Asmundis, Domenico Giovanni Della Rocca
{"title":"在超声波引导下与荧光镜引导下进行腋静脉穿刺以植入心脏植入式电子装置:一项纳入 1257 例患者的荟萃分析。","authors":"Giampaolo Vetta, Antonio Parlavecchio, Jennifer Wright, Michele Magnocavallo, Lorenzo Marcon, Ioannis Doundoulakis, Roberto Scacciavillani, Antonio Sorgente, Luigi Pannone, Alexandre Almorad, Juan Sieira, Charles Audiat, Kazutaka Nakasone, Gezim Bala, Erwin Ströker, Ingrid Overeinder, Pietro Rossi, Andrea Sarkozy, Gian-Battista Chierchia, Carlo de Asmundis, Domenico Giovanni Della Rocca","doi":"10.1007/s10840-024-01932-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ultrasound-guided (Echo-AVP) and Fluoroscopy-guided Axillary Vein Puncture (Fluoro-AVP) are both acknowledged as safe and effective techniques for transvenous implantation of leads for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Nonetheless, it is still debated which of the two techniques has a better safety and efficacy profile. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP versus Fluoro-AVP for CIEDs implantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases up to May 15th, 2024, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary efficacy endpoint was acute procedural success and the primary safety endpoint was a composite endpoint of pneumothorax, pocket hematoma/bleeding, pocket infection and inadvertent arterial puncture. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Odds Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) with relative 95% Confidence Interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 4 studies were included, which enrolled 1257 patients (Echo-AVP: 373 patients; Fluoro-AVP: 884 patients). Echo-AVP led to a significant reduction in the primary safety endpoint (OR: 0.41; p = 0.0009), risk of inadvertent arterial puncture (OR: 0.29; p = 0.003) and fluoroscopy time ( MD: -105.02; p = 0.008). No differences were found between Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP for acute procedural success (OR: 0.77; p = 0.27), pneumothorax (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), pocket hematoma/bleeding (OR: 0.68; p = 0.30), pocket infection (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), procedural time (MD: 1.99; p = 0.65), success rate at first attempt (OR: 1.25; p = 0.34) and venous access time (MD: -0. 25; p = 0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Echo-AVP proved to reduce significantly the primary safety endpoint, inadvertent arterial puncture and fluoroscopy time compared to Fluoro-AVP.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided axillary vein puncture for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: a meta-analysis enrolling 1257 patients.\",\"authors\":\"Giampaolo Vetta, Antonio Parlavecchio, Jennifer Wright, Michele Magnocavallo, Lorenzo Marcon, Ioannis Doundoulakis, Roberto Scacciavillani, Antonio Sorgente, Luigi Pannone, Alexandre Almorad, Juan Sieira, Charles Audiat, Kazutaka Nakasone, Gezim Bala, Erwin Ströker, Ingrid Overeinder, Pietro Rossi, Andrea Sarkozy, Gian-Battista Chierchia, Carlo de Asmundis, Domenico Giovanni Della Rocca\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10840-024-01932-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ultrasound-guided (Echo-AVP) and Fluoroscopy-guided Axillary Vein Puncture (Fluoro-AVP) are both acknowledged as safe and effective techniques for transvenous implantation of leads for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Nonetheless, it is still debated which of the two techniques has a better safety and efficacy profile. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP versus Fluoro-AVP for CIEDs implantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases up to May 15th, 2024, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary efficacy endpoint was acute procedural success and the primary safety endpoint was a composite endpoint of pneumothorax, pocket hematoma/bleeding, pocket infection and inadvertent arterial puncture. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Odds Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) with relative 95% Confidence Interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 4 studies were included, which enrolled 1257 patients (Echo-AVP: 373 patients; Fluoro-AVP: 884 patients). Echo-AVP led to a significant reduction in the primary safety endpoint (OR: 0.41; p = 0.0009), risk of inadvertent arterial puncture (OR: 0.29; p = 0.003) and fluoroscopy time ( MD: -105.02; p = 0.008). No differences were found between Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP for acute procedural success (OR: 0.77; p = 0.27), pneumothorax (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), pocket hematoma/bleeding (OR: 0.68; p = 0.30), pocket infection (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), procedural time (MD: 1.99; p = 0.65), success rate at first attempt (OR: 1.25; p = 0.34) and venous access time (MD: -0. 25; p = 0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Echo-AVP proved to reduce significantly the primary safety endpoint, inadvertent arterial puncture and fluoroscopy time compared to Fluoro-AVP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01932-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01932-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided axillary vein puncture for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: a meta-analysis enrolling 1257 patients.
Introduction: Ultrasound-guided (Echo-AVP) and Fluoroscopy-guided Axillary Vein Puncture (Fluoro-AVP) are both acknowledged as safe and effective techniques for transvenous implantation of leads for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Nonetheless, it is still debated which of the two techniques has a better safety and efficacy profile. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP versus Fluoro-AVP for CIEDs implantation.
Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases up to May 15th, 2024, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary efficacy endpoint was acute procedural success and the primary safety endpoint was a composite endpoint of pneumothorax, pocket hematoma/bleeding, pocket infection and inadvertent arterial puncture. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Odds Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) with relative 95% Confidence Interval (CI).
Results: Overall, 4 studies were included, which enrolled 1257 patients (Echo-AVP: 373 patients; Fluoro-AVP: 884 patients). Echo-AVP led to a significant reduction in the primary safety endpoint (OR: 0.41; p = 0.0009), risk of inadvertent arterial puncture (OR: 0.29; p = 0.003) and fluoroscopy time ( MD: -105.02; p = 0.008). No differences were found between Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP for acute procedural success (OR: 0.77; p = 0.27), pneumothorax (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), pocket hematoma/bleeding (OR: 0.68; p = 0.30), pocket infection (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), procedural time (MD: 1.99; p = 0.65), success rate at first attempt (OR: 1.25; p = 0.34) and venous access time (MD: -0. 25; p = 0.99).
Conclusion: Echo-AVP proved to reduce significantly the primary safety endpoint, inadvertent arterial puncture and fluoroscopy time compared to Fluoro-AVP.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology is an international publication devoted to fostering research in and development of interventional techniques and therapies for the management of cardiac arrhythmias. It is designed primarily to present original research studies and scholarly scientific reviews of basic and applied science and clinical research in this field. The Journal will adopt a multidisciplinary approach to link physical, experimental, and clinical sciences as applied to the development of and practice in interventional electrophysiology. The Journal will examine techniques ranging from molecular, chemical and pharmacologic therapies to device and ablation technology. Accordingly, original research in clinical, epidemiologic and basic science arenas will be considered for publication. Applied engineering or physical science studies pertaining to interventional electrophysiology will be encouraged. The Journal is committed to providing comprehensive and detailed treatment of major interventional therapies and innovative techniques in a structured and clinically relevant manner. It is directed at clinical practitioners and investigators in the rapidly growing field of interventional electrophysiology. The editorial staff and board reflect this bias and include noted international experts in this area with a wealth of expertise in basic and clinical investigation. Peer review of all submissions, conflict of interest guidelines and periodic editorial board review of all Journal policies have been established.