BACKGROUND: Placement of an electrode catheter in the coronary sinus (CS) through the jugular or subclavian vein, as part of electrophysiology (EP) procedures, increases patient discomfort and the possibility of adverse events. We studied the hypothesis that peripheral venous access for CS cannulation, as part of EP procedures, is feasible and can reduce patient discomfort, eliminating central venous access-associated risks. METHODS:Consecutive patients submitted to EP procedures were randomly assigned to peripheral or central venous access for CS cannulation. If after 30 min from initial needle insertion the CS was still not catheterized, the attempt was considered unsuccessful. Patient level of discomfort was assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS:Success rate was 90% in the peripheral versus 95% in the central venous access group (p = 1.00). No complications related to venous access were observed in the peripheral venous access group, whereas one case of pneumothorax and one case of extensive hematoma in the anterior cervical area were recorded in the central venous access group. Patients submitted to central vein catheterization reported higher VAS scores, 46.8 ± 16.3 versus 36.8 ± 12.9 (p = 0.04). No significant difference was observed in fluoroscopy time needed for CS cannulation (51.1 ± 9.2 s versus 51.4 ± 7.9 s; p = 0.71) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This small, randomized study indicates that peripheral venous access for CS catheter placement during EP procedures is feasible, with equivalent success rate to the central venous access approach, and associated with lower levels of self-reported patient discomfort.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Placement of an electrode catheter in the coronary sinus (CS) through the jugular or subclavian vein, as part of electrophysiology (EP) procedures, increases patient discomfort and the possibility of adverse events. We studied the hypothesis that peripheral venous access for CS cannulation, as part of EP procedures, is feasible and can reduce patient discomfort, eliminating central venous access-associated risks. METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to EP procedures were randomly assigned to peripheral or central venous access for CS cannulation. If after 30 min from initial needle insertion the CS was still not catheterized, the attempt was considered unsuccessful. Patient level of discomfort was assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Success rate was 90% in the peripheral versus 95% in the central venous access group (p = 1.00). No complications related to venous access were observed in the peripheral venous access group, whereas one case of pneumothorax and one case of extensive hematoma in the anterior cervical area were recorded in the central venous access group. Patients submitted to central vein catheterization reported higher VAS scores, 46.8 ± 16.3 versus 36.8 ± 12.9 (p = 0.04). No significant difference was observed in fluoroscopy time needed for CS cannulation (51.1 ± 9.2 s versus 51.4 ± 7.9 s; p = 0.71) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This small, randomized study indicates that peripheral venous access for CS catheter placement during EP procedures is feasible, with equivalent success rate to the central venous access approach, and associated with lower levels of self-reported patient discomfort.
Authors: E G Daoud; M Niebauer; O Bakr; J Jentzer; K C Man; B D Williamson; J D Hummel; S A Strickberger; F Morady Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1994-07-15 Impact factor: 2.778