...
首页> 外文期刊>World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases >Excellent femoral outcomes when all access attempts and closure devices are performed by experienced cardiologists
【24h】

Excellent femoral outcomes when all access attempts and closure devices are performed by experienced cardiologists

机译:当所有有经验的心脏病医生进行所有的入路尝试和闭合装置时,股骨均具有出色的结局

获取原文

摘要

Femoral access is considered less safe for access site complications than the radial access. Cardiovascular procedures have not been studied taking operator experience, defined as American Board of Internal Medicine, Interventional Cardiology certification or equivalent qualification in another country, into account. We hypothesize that the procedural results are operator dependent and excellent results are obtained when procedures are performed by experienced operators. Femoral access is higher risk than radial access based on American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines. Femoral access is less forgiving, as opposed to radial, as it is an end-artery, lacks easy compressibility and is more likely to cause morbidity when injured. Hence, radial is recommended over the femoral approach according to ACC practice guidelines. These guidelines are often based on the randomized studies from academic centers where trainees, with variable arterial access experience, perform the initial access stick and arterial closure device deployment. Methods: We performed a single center retrospective review of 32,446 consecutive patients undergoing invasive cardiovascular procedures done from the femoral approach using American College of Cardiology/National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC/NCDR) from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2013. Only experienced operators performed the actual access site stick and the reminder of the invasive procedure. Results: Total bleeding and vascular complications were less than 1%. We define outcomes as excellent if the total bleeding and vascular complication risk is less than 1% based on previous studies discussed in the ACC guidelines. Conclusion: Excellent outcomes can be obtained from the femoral access if experienced cardiologists perform the procedure. Hence, radial arterial access over the femoral access may be selectively rather than universally recommended considering the possibility of varying level of femoral access expertise of different practices. ?
机译:股骨入路被认为比access骨入路更安全。尚未考虑将操作员的经验定义为心血管疾病的方法,操作员的经验被定义为美国内科委员会,介入心脏病学证书或另一个国家的同等资格。我们假设程序结果取决于操作员,并且当程序由经验丰富的操作员执行时会获得出色的结果。根据美国心脏病学会(ACC)指南,股骨入路的风险高于radial门入路。与radial骨相比,股骨入路的耐受性较差,因为它是末端动脉,缺乏易压缩性,受伤时更容易引起发病。因此,根据ACC实务指南,建议在股骨入路推荐放射状。这些指南通常基于来自学术中心的随机研究,在这些中心,具有不同动脉通路经验的受训者执行初始通路棒和动脉闭合装置的部署。方法:从2006年1月1日至2013年6月30日,我们采用美国心脏病学会/国家心血管数据注册中心(ACC / NCDR)对32,446例接受股动脉入路行侵入性心血管手术的连续患者进行了单中心回顾性研究。操作人员执行了实际的进入站点操作,并提示了侵入性程序。结果:总出血和血管并发症少于1%。根据ACC指南中讨论的先前研究,如果总出血和血管并发症风险小于1%,我们将结果定义为极佳。结论:如果有经验的心脏病医生进行该手术,可以从股骨入路获得良好的治疗效果。因此,考虑到不同实践中不同程度的股骨入路专业知识的可能性,可以选择性地而不是普遍推荐在radial骨入路上进行radial动脉通路。 ?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号