Cargando…

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

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 cons...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Göbel, Sebastian, Schwuchow‐Thonke, Sören, Jansen, Thomas, Karbach, Susanne, Emrich, Tilman, Gori, Tommaso, Knies, Finja, Schulz, Eberhard, Münzel, Thomas, Keller, Karsten, Wenzel, Philip
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7754772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32949187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13006
Descripción
Sumario: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.