Emergent transvenous cardiac pacing using ultrasound guidance: a prospective study versus the standard fluoroscopy-guided procedure. Issue 2 (1st April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ferri, Luca A; Farina, Andrea; Lenatti, Laura; Ruffa, Franco; Tiberti, GianLuca; Piatti, Luigi; Savonitto, Stefano
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 5:Issue 2(2016)
• Page Start: 125
• Page End: 129
• Publication Date: 2016-04-01
• Subjects: atrioventricular block -- cardiac pacemaker -- complications -- fluoroscopy -- heart arrest -- transthoracic echocardiography; 616.1205
• DOI: 10.1177/2048872615572598
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2048-8726

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: To compare time to active pacing and complication rates associated with temporary transvenous pacemaker (TTVPM) insertion between a fully echo-guided approach of vein access and lead placement, and standard placement of TTVPM under fluoroscopic guidance. Methods and results: We performed a prospective single-center observational study enrolling all consecutive patients from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2012 needing emergent TTVPM placement. According to personal experience and clinical setting, the operators could choose between a fully echo-guided approach of TTVPM placement through the jugular vein and a standard fluoro-guided approach through the femoral vein. Safety and efficacy endpoints were pre-specified, registered, and compared. A total of 113 patients were treated using the echo-guided approach, and 90 via the fluoro-guided approach. The two groups differed with regard to clinical setting at presentation: an acute coronary syndrome was more frequent in the fluoro-guided approach group (39.7% vs. 16.8%, p <0.001), whereas asystole was more frequent in the echo-guided approach group (9.7 vs. 0%). Median time from decision to active pacing was significantly shorter in the echo-guided approach group (22 vs. 43 minutes, p <0.01). The overall complication rates were significantly lower in the echo-guided approach group (15.0% vs. 28.8%, p 0.02), because of lower rates of infections (2.7% vs. 11.1%, p 0.02) and puncture-related hematomas (0 vs. 3.3%, p =0.08). There were no deaths related to TTVPM, but one heart perforation requiring emergent pericardiocentesis occurred in the fluoro-guided approach group. One pneumothorax treated conservatively occurred in the echo-guided approach group, while no differences were observed with regard to sustained tachyarrhythmias (1.8% vs. 2.2%) or malfunctions requiring reposition of the catheter (8.8 vs. 8.9%). Overall, complications delaying permanent pacemaker implant for >48 hours were observed less often in the echo-guided approach group (6.8 vs. 20.7%, p = 0.03). Conclusion: Echo-guided insertion of TTVPM through the jugular vein is a feasible and safe alternative to fluoroscopic guidance and may reduce complications and time to active pacing in patients who are not candidates for emergent cardiac catheterization.