Key result
Echo-guided TVP insertion is linked to ~48% fewer complications and faster time to active pacing.
Why the study?
Does a fully echo-guided approach reduce time to active pacing and complication rates compared to standard fluoroscopic guidance in patients needing emergent temporary transvenous pacemaker placement?
Observational (n=203)
No
Does a fully echo-guided approach reduce time to active pacing and complication rates compared to standard fluoroscopic guidance in patients needing emergent temporary transvenous pacemaker placement?
Absolute Event Rate: 22% vs 43%
p-value: p=<0.01
Echo-guided insertion of temporary transvenous pacemakers through the jugular vein is a safe and feasible alternative that significantly reduces time to active pacing and complication rates compared to standard fluoroscopic guidance.
May facilitate faster, safer emergent temporary pacing; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferri et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Emergent temporary transvenous pacemaker (TTVPM) placement (n=203). Echo-guided TTVPM placement vs. Fluoroscopy-guided TTVPM placement was evaluated on Median time to active pacing (minutes) (p=<0.01). Echo-guided insertion of temporary transvenous pacemakers significantly reduced median time to active pacing (22 vs. 43 minutes, p<0.01) and overall complication rates (15.0% vs. 28.8%, p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: