A prospective, randomized study comparing ultrasound versus fluoroscopic guided femoral arterial access in noncardiac vascular patients

The aim of our prospective, single-center, randomized study was to compare the procedural outcomes and complication rates of ultrasound (US)-guided common femoral artery (CFA) access to fluoroscopic guidance in noncardiac procedures. A total of 635 patients undergoing femoral access for noncardiac d...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of vascular surgery 2020-07, Vol.72 (1), p.259-267
Hauptverfasser: Stone, Patrick, Campbell, John, Thompson, Stephanie, Walker, Jerri
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The aim of our prospective, single-center, randomized study was to compare the procedural outcomes and complication rates of ultrasound (US)-guided common femoral artery (CFA) access to fluoroscopic guidance in noncardiac procedures. A total of 635 patients undergoing femoral access for noncardiac diagnostic or interventional procedures were randomized 1:1 to receive either fluoroscopic or US-guided access. The primary end point of the study was successful CFA cannulation. Secondary end points included the first-pass success rate, time to sheath insertion, and accidental venipunctures rate. Both short (24 hours) and midterm (30-90 days postprocedure) access complications were assessed by practitioners blinded to patient randomization. Successful CFA cannulation occurred in 93% of US-guided procedures compared with 86% of fluoroscopy-guided access (P = .002). US guidance was associated with increased rates of first-attempt success (74% vs 42%; P 
ISSN:0741-5214
1097-6809
DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.09.051