手工加压与缝线介导关闭装置技术在VA-ECMO脱管中的应用

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of interventional cardiology Pub Date : 2022-03-18 DOI:10.1155/2022/9915247
C. Scherer, C. Stremmel, E. Lüsebrink, T. Stocker, K. Stark, C. Schönegger, A. Kellnar, J. Kleeberger, M. Hanuna, T. Petzold, S. Peterss, D. Braun, J. Hausleiter, C. Hagl, S. Massberg, M. Orban
{"title":"手工加压与缝线介导关闭装置技术在VA-ECMO脱管中的应用","authors":"C. Scherer, C. Stremmel, E. Lüsebrink, T. Stocker, K. Stark, C. Schönegger, A. Kellnar, J. Kleeberger, M. Hanuna, T. Petzold, S. Peterss, D. Braun, J. Hausleiter, C. Hagl, S. Massberg, M. Orban","doi":"10.1155/2022/9915247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The impact of devices for vessel closure on the safety and efficacy of cannula removal in VA-ECMO patients is unknown. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 180 consecutive patients weaned from VA-ECMO after cardiac arrest or cardiogenic shock from January 2012 to June 2020. In the first period (historical technique group), from January 2012 to December 2018, primary decannulation strategy was manual compression. In the second period (current technique group), from January 2019 to June 2020, decannulation was performed either by a conventional approach with manual compression or by a suture-mediated closure device technique. Results A femoral compression system was necessary in 71% of patients in the historical group compared to 39% in the current technique group (p < 0.01). Vascular surgery was performed in 12% in the historical cohort and 2% in the current technique cohort, which indicated a clear trend, albeit it did not reach significance (p = 0.07). Conclusion We illustrated that a suture-mediated closure device technique for VA-ECMO decannulation was feasible, safe, and may have reduced the need of surgical interventions compared to manual compression alone.","PeriodicalId":16329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional cardiology","volume":"2022 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Manual Compression versus Suture-Mediated Closure Device Technique for VA-ECMO Decannulation\",\"authors\":\"C. Scherer, C. Stremmel, E. Lüsebrink, T. Stocker, K. Stark, C. Schönegger, A. Kellnar, J. Kleeberger, M. Hanuna, T. Petzold, S. Peterss, D. Braun, J. Hausleiter, C. Hagl, S. Massberg, M. Orban\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/9915247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background The impact of devices for vessel closure on the safety and efficacy of cannula removal in VA-ECMO patients is unknown. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 180 consecutive patients weaned from VA-ECMO after cardiac arrest or cardiogenic shock from January 2012 to June 2020. In the first period (historical technique group), from January 2012 to December 2018, primary decannulation strategy was manual compression. In the second period (current technique group), from January 2019 to June 2020, decannulation was performed either by a conventional approach with manual compression or by a suture-mediated closure device technique. Results A femoral compression system was necessary in 71% of patients in the historical group compared to 39% in the current technique group (p < 0.01). Vascular surgery was performed in 12% in the historical cohort and 2% in the current technique cohort, which indicated a clear trend, albeit it did not reach significance (p = 0.07). Conclusion We illustrated that a suture-mediated closure device technique for VA-ECMO decannulation was feasible, safe, and may have reduced the need of surgical interventions compared to manual compression alone.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of interventional cardiology\",\"volume\":\"2022 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of interventional cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9915247\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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 cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9915247","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景血管关闭装置对VA-ECMO患者拔管安全性和有效性的影响尚不清楚。方法回顾性分析2012年1月至2020年6月180例心脏骤停或心源性休克后连续退出VA-ECMO的患者。在第一阶段(历史技术组),从2012年1月到2018年12月,主要的去管策略是手动压缩。在第二阶段(当前技术组),从2019年1月至2020年6月,通过手动按压的传统方法或通过缝线介导的关闭装置技术进行脱管。结果历史组71%的患者需要股骨加压系统,而当前技术组为39% (p < 0.01)。血管手术在历史队列中占12%,在当前技术队列中占2%,趋势明显,但没有达到显著性(p = 0.07)。结论:我们证明了缝合介导的关闭装置技术用于VA-ECMO脱管是可行的,安全的,并且与单独的手动压迫相比,可能减少了手术干预的需要。
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
Manual Compression versus Suture-Mediated Closure Device Technique for VA-ECMO Decannulation
Background The impact of devices for vessel closure on the safety and efficacy of cannula removal in VA-ECMO patients is unknown. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 180 consecutive patients weaned from VA-ECMO after cardiac arrest or cardiogenic shock from January 2012 to June 2020. In the first period (historical technique group), from January 2012 to December 2018, primary decannulation strategy was manual compression. In the second period (current technique group), from January 2019 to June 2020, decannulation was performed either by a conventional approach with manual compression or by a suture-mediated closure device technique. Results A femoral compression system was necessary in 71% of patients in the historical group compared to 39% in the current technique group (p < 0.01). Vascular surgery was performed in 12% in the historical cohort and 2% in the current technique cohort, which indicated a clear trend, albeit it did not reach significance (p = 0.07). Conclusion We illustrated that a suture-mediated closure device technique for VA-ECMO decannulation was feasible, safe, and may have reduced the need of surgical interventions compared to manual compression alone.
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
Journal of interventional cardiology
Journal of interventional cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Interventional Cardiology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for cardiologists determined to stay current in the diagnosis, investigation, and management of patients with cardiovascular disease and its associated complications. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on new procedures and techniques in all major subject areas in the field, including: Acute coronary syndrome Coronary disease Congenital heart diseases Myocardial infarction Peripheral arterial disease Valvular heart disease Cardiac hemodynamics and physiology Haemostasis and thrombosis
期刊最新文献
A Comparative Analysis of Primary and Bailout ADR in CTO-PCI The Effect of Electromagnetic Interference Produced by Smartphones Using 5G Network on Patients With Permanent Pacemakers (EMS5G-PPM Study) Comparison of Sheathless and Sheathed Guiding Catheters in Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using the DynamX Sirolimus-Eluting Bioadaptor: 12-Month Clinical and Imaging Outcomes Vascular Complications and Bleeding After Transfemoral TAVR With Surgical Versus Percutaneous Approach: A Contemporary Prospective Study
×
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