OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the effect of ultrasound (US)-guidance compared to the anatomical landmark (AL) approach in patients requiring femoral artery (FA) access for coronary angiography/percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). BACKGROUND: US-guidance has been proposed as a strategy to optimize FA access, potentially leading to decreased vascular complications. METHODS:Patients requiring FA access for coronary angiography/PCI were randomized to the US-guided or AL approaches. The primary endpoint was a composite of immediate procedural vascular outcomes, and access-site outcomes at day one. Results were subsequently pooled in a study-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing US-guided FA access to another strategy. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were randomized (64 US-guided group; 65 AL group). The primary endpoint occurred in 30 patients (47%) with US, and in 39 patients (62%) with AL (P = 0.09). Four additional studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis (1553 patients). Following data pooling, bleeding events (OR = 0.41; 95%CI 0.20-0.83; P = 0.01), venipunctures (OR = 0.18; 95%CI: 0.11-0.29; P < 0.0001), and multiple puncture attempts (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.19-0.31; P < 0.0001) were significantly improved with US-guidance, but not successful common FA cannulation (OR = 0.84; 95%CI: 0.60-1.17; P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Our study did not show significant benefits for the use of US to guide arterial femoral access compared to the anatomical landmark approach, but pooled analysis of five randomized trials showed decreased rates of bleeding events and venipunctures, and improved first-pass success. The clinical impact of these findings is uncertain, and do not warrant a systematic use of US-guidance in this clinical setting.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the effect of ultrasound (US)-guidance compared to the anatomical landmark (AL) approach in patients requiring femoral artery (FA) access for coronary angiography/percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). BACKGROUND: US-guidance has been proposed as a strategy to optimize FA access, potentially leading to decreased vascular complications. METHODS:Patients requiring FA access for coronary angiography/PCI were randomized to the US-guided or AL approaches. The primary endpoint was a composite of immediate procedural vascular outcomes, and access-site outcomes at day one. Results were subsequently pooled in a study-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing US-guided FA access to another strategy. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were randomized (64 US-guided group; 65 AL group). The primary endpoint occurred in 30 patients (47%) with US, and in 39 patients (62%) with AL (P = 0.09). Four additional studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis (1553 patients). Following data pooling, bleeding events (OR = 0.41; 95%CI 0.20-0.83; P = 0.01), venipunctures (OR = 0.18; 95%CI: 0.11-0.29; P < 0.0001), and multiple puncture attempts (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.19-0.31; P < 0.0001) were significantly improved with US-guidance, but not successful common FA cannulation (OR = 0.84; 95%CI: 0.60-1.17; P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Our study did not show significant benefits for the use of US to guide arterial femoral access compared to the anatomical landmark approach, but pooled analysis of five randomized trials showed decreased rates of bleeding events and venipunctures, and improved first-pass success. The clinical impact of these findings is uncertain, and do not warrant a systematic use of US-guidance in this clinical setting.
Authors: Emily V Castle; Krishnaraj S Rathod; Oliver P Guttmann; Alice M Jenkins; Carmel D McCarthy; Charles J Knight; Constantinos O'Mahony; Anthony Mathur; Elliot J Smith; Roshan Weerackody; Adam D Timmis; Andrew Wragg; Daniel A Jones Journal: Heart Vessels Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Sanjit S Jolly; Sulaiman AlRashidi; Marc-André d'Entremont; Omar Alansari; Bradley Brochu; Laura Heenan; Elizabeth Skuriat; Jessica Tyrwhitt; Michael Raco; Michael Tsang; Nicholas Valettas; James L Velianou; Tej Sheth; Matthew Sibbald; Shamir R Mehta; Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri; Jon David Schwalm; Madhu K Natarajan; Andrew Kelly; Elie Akl; Sarah Tawadros; Mercedes Camargo; Walaa Faidi; John Bauer; Rachel Moxham; James Nkurunziza; Gustavo Dutra; Jose Winter Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2022-09-18 Impact factor: 30.154
Authors: Friederike Klein; Sven Möbius-Winkler; Laura Bäz; Rüdiger Pfeifer; Michael Fritzenwanger; Stefan Heymel; Marcus Franz; Pawel Aftanski; P Christian Schulze; Daniel Kretzschmar Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2022-02-27 Impact factor: 2.409