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
_version_ 1783626259019857920
author Göbel, Sebastian
Schwuchow‐Thonke, Sören
Jansen, Thomas
Karbach, Susanne
Emrich, Tilman
Gori, Tommaso
Knies, Finja
Schulz, Eberhard
Münzel, Thomas
Keller, Karsten
Wenzel, Philip
author_facet Göbel, Sebastian
Schwuchow‐Thonke, Sören
Jansen, Thomas
Karbach, Susanne
Emrich, Tilman
Gori, Tommaso
Knies, Finja
Schulz, Eberhard
Münzel, Thomas
Keller, Karsten
Wenzel, Philip
author_sort Göbel, Sebastian
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7754772
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77547722020-12-23 Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy Göbel, Sebastian Schwuchow‐Thonke, Sören Jansen, Thomas Karbach, Susanne Emrich, Tilman Gori, Tommaso Knies, Finja Schulz, Eberhard Münzel, Thomas Keller, Karsten Wenzel, Philip ESC Heart Fail Original Research Articles 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7754772/ /pubmed/32949187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13006 Text en © 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Göbel, Sebastian
Schwuchow‐Thonke, Sören
Jansen, Thomas
Karbach, Susanne
Emrich, Tilman
Gori, Tommaso
Knies, Finja
Schulz, Eberhard
Münzel, Thomas
Keller, Karsten
Wenzel, Philip
Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy
title Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy
title_full Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy
title_fullStr Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy
title_full_unstemmed Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy
title_short Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy
title_sort safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy
topic Original Research Articles
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT gobelsebastian safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT schwuchowthonkesoren safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT jansenthomas safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT karbachsusanne safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT emrichtilman safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT goritommaso safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT kniesfinja safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT schulzeberhard safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT munzelthomas safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT kellerkarsten safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy
AT wenzelphilip safetyoftransradialandtransfemoralleftventricularcomparedwithtransfemoralrightventricularendomyocardialbiopsy