Key result
Rigid-shaft subxiphoid videopericardioscopy severely compromises hemodynamics and causes fatal VF in ~20% of pigs.
Why the study?
Single-port subxiphoid videopericardioscopy with a rigid shaft may interfere with cardiac rhythm and adversely alter hemodynamics, but its impact had not been examined in detail.
Does subxiphoid videopericardioscopy with a rigid shaft alter hemodynamics in a porcine model?
Does subxiphoid videopericardioscopy with a rigid shaft alter hemodynamics in a porcine model?
Subxiphoid videopericardioscopy with a rigid shaft causes significant hemodynamic compromise and life-threatening arrhythmias when navigating to deep targets in a porcine model.
Rigid-shaft subxiphoid videopericardioscopy risks fatal VF in pigs; leaves open whether flexible instruments enable safe human pericardial access.
OBJECTIVE: Single-port subxiphoid videopericardioscopy with a rigid shaft is useful for left atrial exclusion, left ventricular pacing lead implantation, and epicardial mapping, but it may interfere with the cardiac rhythm and adversely alter hemodynamics. We examined the impact of this technique on hemodynamic indices in a porcine model. METHODS: The videopericardioscopy device was introduced into the pericardial space of 5 pigs (35-45 kg) via a subxiphoid approach and navigated to 6 anatomical targets (right atrial appendage, superior vena cava, ascending aorta, left atrial appendage (anterior and posterior approaches), transverse sinus, and atrioventricular groove). After successful target acquisition, the device was withdrawn through the subxiphoid port. When the hemodynamics stabilized, the device was navigated to another target. The heart rate, arterial blood pressure, central venous pressure, pulmonary arterial pressure, and mixed venous oxygen saturation were measured at every pre-target (subxiphoid incision) and target point. After the navigation trials, the animals were sacrificed and the mediastinum space was examined for procedure-related injuries. RESULTS: The device afforded a good view, and the navigation trials were successfully performed on the beating heart. Four animals tolerated the procedures, while 1 died of device-induced ventricular fibrillation after the trials. Hemodynamics were severely compromised at all anatomical targets except the left atrial appendage (anterior approach). CONCLUSIONS: Subxiphoid videopericardioscopy significantly interferes with the cardiac rhythm, causing life-threatening arrhythmia and hemodynamic compromise, when the target is located deep and far from the pericardiotomy. A flexible or highly articulated device would enable intrapericardial navigation without hemodynamic compromise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yokota et al. (2010) studied this question. Subxiphoid videopericardioscopy with a rigid shaft was evaluated on Hemodynamic indices and procedure-related injuries. Subxiphoid videopericardioscopy with a rigid shaft severely compromised hemodynamics at most anatomical targets and caused fatal ventricular fibrillation in 1 of 5 pigs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: