Literature DB >> 30430294

Impact of vascular access site on procedural time of endomyocardial biopsy.

Kentaro Mukai1, Yusuke Nakano1, Tomofumi Mizuno1, Toru Niwa1, Hirokazu Wakabayashi1, Akihiro Suzuki1, Atsushi Watanabe1, Hirohiko Ando1, Kenta Murotani2, Katsuhisa Waseda3,4, Tetsuya Amano1.   

Abstract

Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is widely used for the diagnosis of unexplained ventricular dysfunction and for assessment of cardiac allograft rejection. But, the impact of vascular access site on procedural time of EMB is not well-known. From February 2014 to May 2016, consecutive patients requiring EMB were prospectively enrolled in this study. Vascular access, by either the jugular or femoral vein, was randomly assigned. EMB was randomly performed by 3 pre-identified physicians based on practical experience in EMB. Each case was required to obtain at least 3 samples. The primary endpoint was to compare the total time spent in acquiring EMB from the right ventricular septum between the jugular and femoral vein access groups. The secondary endpoints were evaluation of each set (1st to 3rd attempt) of EMB times and safety. In addition, factors affecting the EMB procedural times were evaluated. A total of 49 consecutive patients requiring EMB (3.9 attempts/patient) were enrolled (the jugular group: 23, the femoral group: 26), and 156 myocardial samples (3.2 samples/patient) were obtained. There were no significant differences in total biopsy procedural time between the 2 groups (16.3 ± 7.4 vs. 20.8 ± 9.9 min, p = 0.075). Independent predictors for longer procedural time of the 1st attempt included femoral access, non-expert operators, and larger right atrium according to multiple linear regression analysis. The complication rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups, except for catheter kinking as a technical factor. Total biopsy time was not significantly different between the jugular and femoral venous access groups. However, the 1st attempt EMB procedural time by non-expert operators was longer when using the femoral approach, especially in cases involving a larger right atrium diameter.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Access site; Endomyocardial biopsy; Femoral; Jugular; Time

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30430294     DOI: 10.1007/s00380-018-1298-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Vessels        ISSN: 0910-8327            Impact factor:   2.037


  19 in total

1.  Endomyocardial biopsy.

Authors:  S SAKAKIBARA; S KONNO
Journal:  Jpn Heart J       Date:  1962-11

2.  Practice guidelines for central venous access: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access.

Authors:  Stephen M Rupp; Jeffrey L Apfelbaum; Casey Blitt; Robert A Caplan; Richard T Connis; Karen B Domino; Lee A Fleisher; Stuart Grant; Jonathan B Mark; Jeffrey P Morray; David G Nickinovich; Avery Tung
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 7.892

3.  The role of endomyocardial biopsy in the management of cardiovascular disease: a commentary on joint AHA/ACC/ESC guidelines.

Authors:  P Elliott; E Arbustini
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Hospital volume and cardiac complications of endomyocardial biopsy: a retrospective cohort study of 9508 adult patients using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan.

Authors:  Toshiaki Isogai; Hideo Yasunaga; Hiroki Matsui; Tetsuro Ueda; Hiroyuki Tanaka; Hiromasa Horiguchi; Kiyohide Fushimi
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 2.882

6.  Is the internal jugular vein or femoral vein a better approach site for endomyocardial biopsy in heart transplant recipients?

Authors:  Teruhiko Imamura; Koichiro Kinugawa; Daisuke Nitta; Takeo Fujino; Toshiro Inaba; Hisataka Maki; Masaru Hatano; Osamu Kinoshita; Kan Nawata; Atsushi Yao; Shunei Kyo; Minoru Ono
Journal:  Int Heart J       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 7.  Current status of endomyocardial biopsy.

Authors:  Aaron M From; Joseph J Maleszewski; Charanjit S Rihal
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 7.616

8.  Complication rate of right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy via the femoral approach: a retrospective and prospective study analyzing 3048 diagnostic procedures over an 11-year period.

Authors:  Matthias Holzmann; Alexander Nicko; Uwe Kühl; Michel Noutsias; Wolfgang Poller; Wolfgang Hoffmann; Andreas Morguet; Bernhard Witzenbichler; Carsten Tschöpe; Heinz-Peter Schultheiss; Matthias Pauschinger
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Endomyocardial biopsy via the femoral access - still safe and valuable diagnostic tool.

Authors:  Sylwia Sławek; Aleksander Araszkiewicz; Agnieszka Gaczkowska; Justyna Koszarska; Damian Celiński; Marek Grygier; Maciej Lesiak; Stefan Grajek
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 2.298

10.  Postprocedural radial artery occlusion rate using a sheathless guiding catheter for left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy performed by transradial approach.

Authors:  Behrouz Kherad; Clemens Köhncke; Frank Spillmann; Heiner Post; Michel Noutsias; Burkert Pieske; Florian Krackhardt; Carsten Tschöpe
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.298

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.