Dataset Information

Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

With the present study, we sought to determine the safety of three different endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) access routes in 514 patients admitted for diagnostic workup of heart failure of unknown aetiology.

Methods and results

In this retrospective monocentric cohort study, we analysed 514 consecutive patients with heart failure without evidence of significant coronary artery disease or valvular disease undergoing EMB between November 2013 and December 2018, stratified in three access route groups: transradial arterial left ventricular (LV-)EMB (323 patients), transfemoral LV-EMB (138 patients), and transfemoral right ventricular (RV-)EMB (53 patients). Patients undergoing selective transradial LV-EMB were older compared with patients undergoing selective transfemoral LV-EMB or RV-EMB [transradial LV-EMB: 56.0 (45.0/64.0) vs. transfemoral LV-EMB: 53 (42.5/64.5), P = 0.455; transradial LV-EMB: 56 (45.0/64.0) vs. RV-EMB: 53 (42.5/64), P = 0.695] and presented more often in New York Heart Association-functional class III and IV. A total of eight major complications including permanent atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation, pericardial tamponade necessitating pericardiocentesis, stroke and transient cerebral ischaemic attack as well as severe valvular damage, vascular access site complications, and ventricular fibrillation were documented with no significant differences between the groups (8/514, 1.5%). Minor complications such as transient chest pain, non-sustained electrocardiogram abnormalities, and transient atrioventricular block were rare and equally distributed between groups.

Conclusions

Transradial LV-EMB is a safe procedure for experienced radial operators and non-inferior compared with transfemoral LV-EMB and RV-EMB. An accurate peri-procedural and post-procedural monitoring and follow-up care should be recommended for all patients undergoing this procedure in order to identify potential complications.

SUBMITTER: Gobel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7754772 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy.

Göbel Sebastian S Schwuchow-Thonke Sören S Jansen Thomas T Karbach Susanne S Emrich Tilman T Gori Tommaso T Knies Finja F Schulz Eberhard E Münzel Thomas T Keller Karsten K Wenzel Philip P

ESC heart failure 20200919 6

<h4>Aims</h4>With the present study, we sought to determine the safety of three different endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) access routes in 514 patients admitted for diagnostic workup of heart failure of unknown aetiology.<h4>Methods and results</h4>In this retrospective monocentric cohort study, we analysed 514 consecutive patients with heart failure without evidence of significant coronary artery disease or valvular disease undergoing EMB between November 2013 and December 2018, stratified in three ...[more]

PMID: 32949187

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies suggested that the left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has a better efficacy to reduce QRS duration and produce a lower pacing threshold than the conventional right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing (RVOP), which resulted in a better cardiac function and ventricular synchronization. However, whether the LBBAP has a better efficacy in improving left atrial structure, function in pace-dependent patients compared with RVOP has not been well studied.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the atrial outcomes of pace-dependent patients who received LBBAP or RVOP procedures.Methods and resultsA total of 72 patients (including II° AVB, high AVB, and III° AVB, excluding atrial fibrillation patients with atrioventricular block) consecutively enrolled in this single-center prospective clinical study and randomly assigned to the RVOP group and the LBBP group with 36 patients. All patients were pace-dependent. The changes in echocardiogram, speckle-tracking echocardiography, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and 6-min walking distance were documented and compared between two groups at baseline, 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after the implantation. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The results of the study were as following: (1) left atrial structure index: Our study indicated that there are no significant differences in left atrial anteroposterior dimension (LAAPD), left atrial superoinferior dimension, and left atrial mediolateral dimension between two groups. While the LAAPD in the LBBAP group was significantly reduced at 6 months after implantation ([38.22 ± 2.17] mm vs. [34.13 ± 1.59] mm, p < .05). (2) Left atrial strain index: We observed that the S% was significantly improved in both groups at 3 and 6 months after implantation but more prominent in the LBBAP group at 6 months (36.94 ± 11.67 vs. 25.87 ± 8.93, p = .01). SRs, SRe were improved in the RVOP group at 6 months after implantation but was further significantly increased in the LBBAP group. Similarly, the SRa in the LBBAP group was significantly better than the RVOP group after 6 months (-2.11 ± 0.75 vs. -2.51 ± 0.70, p = .04). (3) Left atrial ejection index: LAEF% in the LBBAP group was significantly improved compared with the RVOP group (60.02 ± 1.88 vs. 53.65 ± 2.45, p = .047) and baseline (60.02 ± 1.88 vs. 49.68 ± 2.75, p < .05) at 6 months after the surgery. (4) Left ventricular ejection index: The LVEF% in the LBBAP group was significantly increased than the RVOP group after 6 months (69.14 ± 4.99 vs. 64.60 ± 4.84, p = .01) and the BNP level was significantly lower in the LBBAP group compared with the RVOP group at 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after implantation (p < .05). (5) 6-min walking distance: the 6-min walking distance was significantly increased at 3 and 6 months after implantation compared with that before (p < .05) in both groups, but was more prominent in LBBAP groups ([483.03 ± 11.02] m vs. [431.09 ± 10.69] m,p < .05).ConclusionCompared with the traditional RVOP, the LBBAP procedure increased left atrial myocardial stress as well as left atrial ejection in pace-dependent patients at follow-up to 6 months.

Dataset Information

Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets