Aref El Nasasra1, Hilmi Alnsasra2, Doron Zahger2, Tsahi T Lerman2, Sergio Kobal2, Carlos Cafri2, Moti Haim2, Lior Fuchs3, Avi Shimony2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 151, 84101, Beer Sheva, Israel. arefsalam@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Cardiology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 151, 84101, Beer Sheva, Israel. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The standard approach for urgent trans-venous temporary cardiac pacemaker (TVTP) implantation is fluoroscopy guidance. The delay in activation of the fluoroscopy-room and the transfer of unstable patients may be life-threatening. Echocardiography-guided TP implantation may increase the safety of the patients by obviating the need for in-hospital transfer. We examined the feasibility and safety of echocardiography-guided vs. fluoroscopy-guided TVTP implantation. METHODS: From January 2015 to September 2017 data for consecutive patients who needed emergent TVTP implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Ultrasound-guided TVTP protocol that was introduced in our center in January 2015 involved ultrasound guidance for both central venous access and pacing lead positioning. Access sites included femoral, subclavian, or jugular veins. Electrodes were placed in the right ventricular apex by means of echocardiographic monitoring in intensive care unit or by fluoroscopic guidance. Endpoints were achievement of successful ventricular pacing and procedural complications. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (17 echocardiography-guided and 49 fluoroscopy-guided) were included. There were no differences in pacing threshold between the echocardiography-guided group and the fluoroscopy-guided group (0.75 ± 0.58 mA vs. 0.57 ± 0.35 mA, p = 0.24). The access site for implantation was femoral vein in 27% for the fluoroscopy-guided vs. none for the echocardiography-guided approach (p = 0.015). One hematoma and one related infection occurred in the fluoroscopy-guided group. The need for electrode repositioning was observed in 1 patient in each group. There were no procedural-related deaths in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiography-guided temporary cardiac pacing is a feasible and safe alternative to fluoroscopy-guided approach and significantly lowers the need for in-hospital transfer.
BACKGROUND: The standard approach for urgent trans-venous temporary cardiac pacemaker (TVTP) implantation is fluoroscopy guidance. The delay in activation of the fluoroscopy-room and the transfer of unstable patients may be life-threatening. Echocardiography-guided TP implantation may increase the safety of the patients by obviating the need for in-hospital transfer. We examined the feasibility and safety of echocardiography-guided vs. fluoroscopy-guided TVTP implantation. METHODS: From January 2015 to September 2017 data for consecutive patients who needed emergent TVTP implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Ultrasound-guided TVTP protocol that was introduced in our center in January 2015 involved ultrasound guidance for both central venous access and pacing lead positioning. Access sites included femoral, subclavian, or jugular veins. Electrodes were placed in the right ventricular apex by means of echocardiographic monitoring in intensive care unit or by fluoroscopic guidance. Endpoints were achievement of successful ventricular pacing and procedural complications. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (17 echocardiography-guided and 49 fluoroscopy-guided) were included. There were no differences in pacing threshold between the echocardiography-guided group and the fluoroscopy-guided group (0.75 ± 0.58 mA vs. 0.57 ± 0.35 mA, p = 0.24). The access site for implantation was femoral vein in 27% for the fluoroscopy-guided vs. none for the echocardiography-guided approach (p = 0.015). One hematoma and one related infection occurred in the fluoroscopy-guided group. The need for electrode repositioning was observed in 1 patient in each group. There were no procedural-related deaths in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiography-guided temporary cardiac pacing is a feasible and safe alternative to fluoroscopy-guided approach and significantly lowers the need for in-hospital transfer.
Authors: J Merrer; B De Jonghe; F Golliot; J Y Lefrant; B Raffy; E Barre; J P Rigaud; D Casciani; B Misset; C Bosquet; H Outin; C Brun-Buisson; G Nitenberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-08-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Omolade O Sogade; Rieta N Aben; Harry Eyituoyo; Nkechi C Arinze; Felix O Sogade Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2021-07-18 Impact factor: 1.976