首页> 外文期刊>The Canadian journal of cardiology >A Comparison of Lead Placement Through the Subclavian Vein Technique With Fluoroscopy-Guided Axillary Vein Technique for Permanent Pacemaker Insertion
【24h】

A Comparison of Lead Placement Through the Subclavian Vein Technique With Fluoroscopy-Guided Axillary Vein Technique for Permanent Pacemaker Insertion

机译:锁骨下静脉技术与荧光引导下腋静脉技术对永久起搏器插入的铅放置的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: The intrathoracic subclavian venous technique for pacemaker implantation may be associated with serious complications. We describe an alternative technique for obtaining venous access for pacemaker implantation through axillary vein under fluoroscopic guidance and compare it with the conventional, subclavian approach. Methods: We conducted a single-centre, prospective, nonrandomized study. All adult patients with indication for permanent pacing who consented were recruited during a 3-year period. To access the axillary vein, we used the alternative technique with a new fluoroscopic landmark. The subclavian access was obtained as per the usual approach. Results: We studied 478 lead placements during 3 years; 315 lead placements through axillary venous technique (group 1) were compared with 163 lead placements through subclavian venous technique (group 2). Both routes had a high and comparable success rate, 98.09% in group 1 and 96.93% in group 2. The axillary approach was successful at the first attempt in 194 punctures (61.6%), as vs 60 in group 2 (36.8%) P < 0.0001. The average number of attempts in group 1 was 2.06 per patient and 2.56 in group 2 (P < 0.001). There were 3 (2.94%) pneumothoraxes in group 2 and none in group 1. During a mean follow-up period of 3.2 months in group1 and 3.7 months in group 2, 1 patient in group 2 had a lead fracture.
机译:背景:胸腔锁骨下静脉植入起搏器可能会导致严重的并发症。我们描述了一种替代技术,用于在荧光镜引导下通过腋静脉获得起搏器植入的静脉通路,并将其与常规锁骨下入路进行比较。方法:我们进行了单中心,前瞻性,非随机研究。在3年内招募了所有同意永久起搏的成年患者。要进入腋静脉,我们将替代技术与新的荧光镜界标结合使用。按照常规方法获得锁骨下入路。结果:我们在3年中研究了478个潜在客户的位置;比较了通过腋静脉技术(第1组)的315个引线放置与通过锁骨下静脉技术(第2组)的163个引线放置进行了比较。两种途径的成功率均较高,在第1组中为98.09%,在第2组中为96.93%。腋窝入路首次尝试成功穿刺194次(61.6%),而第2组60例(36.8%)P <0.0001。第一组的平均尝试次数为每名患者2.06次,第二组的平均尝试次数为2.56次(P <0.001)。第2组有3例(2.94%)气胸,第1组没有。在第1组3.2个月和第2组3.7个月的平均随访期间,第2组中有1例患者发生铅骨折。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 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