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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of vascular surgery 2020-07, Vol.72 (1), p.259-267 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
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 |