Complicaciones del uso del angioseal vs compresión manual en cateterismo cardíaco mediante punción femoral
| Contribuinte(s) |
Trillos Peña, Carlos Enrique |
|---|---|
| Data(s) |
20/11/2012
|
| Resumo |
Objetivo: Comparar las complicaciones del uso de Angioseal® versus compresión manual en los pacientes llevados a cateterismo cardíaco en el Servicio de Hemodinamia de la Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, del 1º de enero de 2005 al 31 de diciembre de 2010, mediante punción arterial femoral percutánea. Metodología: Se realizó un Estudio Observacional, Analítico, de tipo Cohorte Retrospectiva. Partiendo de dos grupos de personas con indicación de cateterismo cardíaco por cualquier causa, uno expuesto al procedimiento con Angioseal® y el otro con compresión manual. Resultados: Con el uso de Angioseal® versus compresión manual la aparición de complicaciones fue 7,3% vs 4,1%, estas diferencias no fueron significativas (OR 1,81 IC95 0,96-3,40; RR 1,75 IC95 0,96-3,18) . La enfermedad coronaria (OR 2,27 IC95 1,07-4,79; RR 2,18 IC95 1,06-4,46) y a la colocación de stent (OR 3,49 IC95 1,82-6,69; RR 3,25 IC95 1,75-6,02 si se relacionaron significativamente con la aparición de complicaciones menores. Conclusión: No encontramos soporte para aprobar o desaprobar el uso de Angioseal® o compresión manual como manejo de la hemostasia, con respecto a las complicaciones. Sin embargo, se encontró que la colocación de stents está fuertemente relacionada con el desarrollo de complicaciones menores, lo cual hace que estos pacientes deban ser objeto de monitorización estrecha. Objective: To compare the complications of using Angioseal ® versus manual compression in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at the Service Hemodynamics of the Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010, by femoral artery puncture percutaneously. Methodology: An observational, analytical, retrospective cohort study. Based on two groups of people with cardiac catheterization indication for any reason, one exposed to Angioseal ® procedure and the other with manual compression. Results: With the use of manual compression Angioseal ® versus the occurrence of complications was 7.3% vs 4.1%, these differences were not significant (OR 1.81 CI95 0.96 to 3.40, RR 1.75 CI95 0.96 to 3.18). Coronary heart disease (OR 2.27 CI95 1.07 to 4.79, RR 2.18 CI95 1.06 to 4.46) and stent placement (OR 3.49 CI95 1.82 to 6.69, RR CI95 3.25 1.75 to 6.02 were significantly associated with occurrence of minor complications. CONCLUSION: We found no support to approve or disapprove the use of Angioseal ® or manual compression as hemostasis management, respect to complications . However, we found that the stent is strongly related to the development of minor complications, which makes that these patients must be closely monitored. |
| Formato |
application/pdf |
| Identificador | |
| Idioma(s) |
spa |
| Publicador |
Facultad de medicina |
| Direitos |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Fonte |
reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR instname:Universidad del Rosario 1. The World Health Report 2002. Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2012, from http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/whr02_en.pdf 2. DANE - Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística [Internet]. [Cited 2012 Nov 20]. Available from: http://www.dane.gov.co/#twoj_fragment1-4 3. Koreny M, Riedmuller E, Nikfardjam, et al. Arterial Puncture Closing Devices Compared with Standard Manual Compression after Cardiac Catheterization, Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004 21; 291(3):350-7. 4. Upponi S, Ganeshan AG, Warakaulle DR, et al. Angioseal versus manual compression for haemostasis following peripheral vascular diagnostic and interventional procedures- A randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Radiology 2007; 61: 332-334. 5. Veasey AR, Large JK, Silberbauer J, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing Starclose and Angioseal vascular closure devices in a district general hospital – the SCOAST study. International Journal of clinical of practice 2008; 62 (6): 912-918. 6. Tzinieris IN, Papaioannou GI, Dragomanovits SI, Deliargyris EN. Minimizing femoral Access complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: A proposed strategy of bony landmark guided femoral access, routine access site angiography and appropriate use of closure devices. Hellenic J cardiol 2007; 28: 127-133. 7. Applegate R, Grabarczyk M, Little W, et al. Vascular closure devices in patients treated with anticoagulation and IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors during percutaneous revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40:78-83. 8. Carey D, Martin JR, Moore CA, et al. Complications of femoral artery closure device. Catheter cardiovasc Interv 2001; 52 (1): 3-7. 9. Dangas G, Mehran R, Kokolis S. et al. Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions following hemostasis with manual compression versus arterial puncture closing devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38 (3):638-641 10. Applegate R, Sacrinty M, Kutcher M, et al. Vascular complications with newer generations of Angioseal Vascular Closure Devices. Journal of interventional Cardiology 2006; 19 (1): 67-74. 11. Nikolsky E, Mehra R, Halkin A, et al. Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44(6):1200-9. 12. Jessup DB, Coletti AT, Barry WH, et al. Elective coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention during uninterrupted warfarin therapy. Catheter cardiovasc interv 2003; 60 (2): 180-4 13. Assali AR, Sdringola S, Moustapha A, et al. Outcome of Access site in patients treated with platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the era of closure devices. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003: 58 (1): 1-5. 14. Jensen J, Saleh N, Jensen U, et al. The inflammatory Response to Femoral Arterial Closure Devices: An Randomized Comparison among Femostop, Angioseal and Perclose. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2008; 31: 751-755. 15. Shammas NW, Rajendran VR, Alldredge SG, et al. Randomized comparison of Vasoseal and Angioseal closure device in patients undergoing coronary angiography and angioplasty. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002; 55(4): 421-5. 16. Looby S, Keeling A, McErlean A, et al. Efficacy and Safety of the Angioseal vascular Closure Device Post Antegrade Puncture. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2008; 31: 558-562. 17. Muller DW, Shamir KJ, Ellis SG, et al. Peripheral vascular complications after conventional and complex percutaneous coronary interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 1992 69(1):63-8. 18. Kussmaul WG 3rd, Buchbinder M, Whitlow PL, et al. Rapid arterial hemostasis and decreased access site complications after cardiac catheterization and angioplasty: results of a randomized trial of a novel hemostatic device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 25(7):1685-92. 19. Gwechenberger M, Katzenschlager R, Heinz G, et al. Use of a collagen plug versus manual compression for sealing arterial puncture site after cardiac catheterization. Angiology. 1997; 48(2):121-6. 20. Duffin DC, Muhlestein JB, Allisson SB, et al. Femoral arterial puncture management after percutaneous coronary procedures: a comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between manual compression and two different vascular closure devices. J Invasive Cardiol. 2001; 13(5):354-62. 21. Schickel SI, Adkisson P, Miracle V, et al. Achieving femoral artery hemostasis after cardiac catheterization: a comparison of methods. Am J Crit Care. 1999; 8(6):406-9. 22. Baim DS, Knopf WD, Hinohara T, et al. Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization: results of the suture to ambulate and discharge (STAND I and STAND II) trials. Am J Cardiol. 2000; 85(7):864-9. 23. de Swart H, Dijkman L, Hofstra L, et al. A new hemostatic puncture closure device for the immediate sealing of arterial puncture sites. Am J Cardiol. 1993; 72(5):445-9. 24. Lupattelli T, Clerissi J, Clerici G, et al. The efficacy and safety of closure of brachial access using the AngioSeal closure device: experience with 161 interventions in diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2008; 47(4):782-8. Epub 2008 Mar 4. 25. Kälsch HI, Eggebrecht H, Mayringer S, et al. Randomized comparison of effects of suture-based and collagen-based vascular closure devices on post-procedural leg perfusion. Clin Res Cardiol. 2008; 97(1):43-8. Epub 2007 Sep 18. 26. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Fusaro M, Tashani A, et al. Angioseal use after antegrade femoral arteriotomy in patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization for critical limb ischemia: a case series. Int J Cardiol. 2007; 118(3):398-9. Epub 2006 Oct 17 27. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. [Internet]; Retrieved from: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 28. CDC - Epi InfoTM - [Internet] Downloads. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://wwwn.cdc.gov/epiinfo/html/downloads.htm TEME 0080 2012 |
| Palavras-Chave | #CATETERISMO CARDIÁCO #CIRCULACIÓN SANGUÍNEA #ENFERMEDADES CARDIACAS #EPIDEMIOLOGÍA #SALUD PÚBLICA #Angioseal #Manual compression #Cardiac catheterization #Femoral puncture |
| Tipo |
info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion |
