The Experts below are selected from a list of 4137 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ana Paula Tagliari - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
insights from the axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound versus cephalic Vein dissection trial
Future Cardiology, 2021Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Eduardo Keller Saadi, Carisi Anne PolanczykAbstract:Axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound (US-Ax) versus cephalic Vein dissection in pacemaker and defibrillator implant: a multicenter randomized clinical trial is a recently published study in which 88 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two methods. Even being performed by operators with not previous ultrasound-guided axillary Vein Puncture experience, this group presented a higher success rate, lower procedural time and comparable complication incidence.
-
axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound vs cephalic Vein dissection in pacemaker and defibrillator implant a multicenter randomized clinical trial
Heart Rhythm, 2020Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Eduardo Keller Saadi, Andres Di Leoni Ferrari, Carisi Anne PolanczykAbstract:Abstract Background Although still not standard, axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound (US-Ax) has emerged as a valid alternative access route to pacemaker and defibrillator leads insertion. Objective To evaluate whether US-Ax compared to cephalic Vein dissection (CV) improves success and early complications in pacemaker or defibrillator implant. Methods Prospective, multicenter clinical trial including 88 adult patients randomized 1:1 to US-Ax (n=44) or CV (n=44). All procedures were performed by operators with no previous experience in axillary approach. Primary endpoint was defined as success rate. Secondary endpoints were venous access site change, time to obtain venous access, total procedural time, and early complication rate. Analyzes were carried out using the intention-to-treat principle. Results Median age was 70.5 years (58.2–79.7), and 60.2% were males. Considering the primary outcome, a higher success rate was observed in axillary group (97.7% vs. 54.5%; p Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial comparing self-learned US-Ax to CV in cardiac leads implantation. Our results indicate that the axillary approach was superior in terms of success rate, time to obtain venous access and procedural time, with similar complication rate.
-
ultrasound guided axillary Vein Puncture in cardiac lead implantation time to move to a new standard access
Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Review, 2020Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Andres Di Leoni Ferrari, Luiz Henrique Dussin, Leandro De Moura, Marcio Rodrigo MartinsAbstract:Cardiac stimulation therapy has evolved significantly over the past 30 years. Currently, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are the mainstream therapy for many potentially lethal heart conditions, such as advanced atrioventricular block or sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Despite sometimes being lifesaving, the implant is surgical and therefore carries all the inevitable intrinsic risks. In the process of technology evolution, one of the most important factors is to make it safer for the patient. In the context of CIED implants, complications include accidental Puncture of intrathoracic structures. Alternative strategies to intrathoracic subclavian Vein Puncture include cephalic Vein dissection or axillary Vein Puncture, which can be guided by fluoroscopy, venography or, more recently, ultrasound. In this article, the authors analyse the state of the art of ultrasound-guided axillary Vein Puncture using evidence from landmark studies in this field.
Carisi Anne Polanczyk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
insights from the axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound versus cephalic Vein dissection trial
Future Cardiology, 2021Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Eduardo Keller Saadi, Carisi Anne PolanczykAbstract:Axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound (US-Ax) versus cephalic Vein dissection in pacemaker and defibrillator implant: a multicenter randomized clinical trial is a recently published study in which 88 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two methods. Even being performed by operators with not previous ultrasound-guided axillary Vein Puncture experience, this group presented a higher success rate, lower procedural time and comparable complication incidence.
-
axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound vs cephalic Vein dissection in pacemaker and defibrillator implant a multicenter randomized clinical trial
Heart Rhythm, 2020Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Eduardo Keller Saadi, Andres Di Leoni Ferrari, Carisi Anne PolanczykAbstract:Abstract Background Although still not standard, axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound (US-Ax) has emerged as a valid alternative access route to pacemaker and defibrillator leads insertion. Objective To evaluate whether US-Ax compared to cephalic Vein dissection (CV) improves success and early complications in pacemaker or defibrillator implant. Methods Prospective, multicenter clinical trial including 88 adult patients randomized 1:1 to US-Ax (n=44) or CV (n=44). All procedures were performed by operators with no previous experience in axillary approach. Primary endpoint was defined as success rate. Secondary endpoints were venous access site change, time to obtain venous access, total procedural time, and early complication rate. Analyzes were carried out using the intention-to-treat principle. Results Median age was 70.5 years (58.2–79.7), and 60.2% were males. Considering the primary outcome, a higher success rate was observed in axillary group (97.7% vs. 54.5%; p Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial comparing self-learned US-Ax to CV in cardiac leads implantation. Our results indicate that the axillary approach was superior in terms of success rate, time to obtain venous access and procedural time, with similar complication rate.
Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
subclavian and axillary Vein access vs cephalic Vein cut down for lead implantation a meta analysis
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2020Co-Authors: Varunsiri Atti, Mohit K Turagam, Aakash Angirekula, Shannon Heffer, Jalaj Garg, Pradeep Kumar Devarakonda, Scott Koerber, Andrea Natale, Dhanunjaya LakkireddyAbstract:Transvenous access is fundamental step during cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. The preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate. A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian Vein Puncture (SVP) and axillary Vein Puncture (AVP) vs cephalic Vein cutdown (
-
subclavian and axillary Vein access versus cephalic Vein cutdown for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation a meta analysis
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, 2020Co-Authors: Varunsiri Atti, Mohit K Turagam, Aakash Angirekula, Jalaj Garg, Scott Koerber, Andrea Natale, Rakesh Gopinathannair, Dhanunjaya LakkireddyAbstract:Abstract Objectives This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Background Minimally invasive transvenous access is a fundamental step during implantation of CIEDs. However, the preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate, and the decision depends on patient characteristics and operator experience. Methods A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian Vein Puncture (SVP) and axillary Vein Puncture (AVP) versus cephalic Vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and various scientific conferences from inception to July 1, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CIs). Results Twenty-three studies were eligible that included 35,722 patients (SVP, 18,009 patients; AVP, 409 patients; and CVC, 17,304 patients). Compared with CVC, SVP was associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax (RR: 4.88; 95% CI: 2.95 to 8.06) and device/lead failure (RR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.09), whereas there was no significant difference in these outcomes compared with AVP. Acute procedural success was significantly higher with SVP compared with CVC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.53). There was no significant difference in other complications such as pocket hematoma/bleeding, device infection, or pericardial effusion between SVP or AVP compared with CVC. Conclusions CVC was associated with a lower risk of pneumothorax and lead failure compared with SVP. AVP and CVC are both effective approaches for CIED lead implantation and offer the potential to avoid the complications usually observed with traditional SVP.
Adriano Nunes Kochi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
insights from the axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound versus cephalic Vein dissection trial
Future Cardiology, 2021Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Eduardo Keller Saadi, Carisi Anne PolanczykAbstract:Axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound (US-Ax) versus cephalic Vein dissection in pacemaker and defibrillator implant: a multicenter randomized clinical trial is a recently published study in which 88 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two methods. Even being performed by operators with not previous ultrasound-guided axillary Vein Puncture experience, this group presented a higher success rate, lower procedural time and comparable complication incidence.
-
axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound vs cephalic Vein dissection in pacemaker and defibrillator implant a multicenter randomized clinical trial
Heart Rhythm, 2020Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Eduardo Keller Saadi, Andres Di Leoni Ferrari, Carisi Anne PolanczykAbstract:Abstract Background Although still not standard, axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound (US-Ax) has emerged as a valid alternative access route to pacemaker and defibrillator leads insertion. Objective To evaluate whether US-Ax compared to cephalic Vein dissection (CV) improves success and early complications in pacemaker or defibrillator implant. Methods Prospective, multicenter clinical trial including 88 adult patients randomized 1:1 to US-Ax (n=44) or CV (n=44). All procedures were performed by operators with no previous experience in axillary approach. Primary endpoint was defined as success rate. Secondary endpoints were venous access site change, time to obtain venous access, total procedural time, and early complication rate. Analyzes were carried out using the intention-to-treat principle. Results Median age was 70.5 years (58.2–79.7), and 60.2% were males. Considering the primary outcome, a higher success rate was observed in axillary group (97.7% vs. 54.5%; p Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial comparing self-learned US-Ax to CV in cardiac leads implantation. Our results indicate that the axillary approach was superior in terms of success rate, time to obtain venous access and procedural time, with similar complication rate.
-
ultrasound guided axillary Vein Puncture in cardiac lead implantation time to move to a new standard access
Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Review, 2020Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Andres Di Leoni Ferrari, Luiz Henrique Dussin, Leandro De Moura, Marcio Rodrigo MartinsAbstract:Cardiac stimulation therapy has evolved significantly over the past 30 years. Currently, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are the mainstream therapy for many potentially lethal heart conditions, such as advanced atrioventricular block or sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Despite sometimes being lifesaving, the implant is surgical and therefore carries all the inevitable intrinsic risks. In the process of technology evolution, one of the most important factors is to make it safer for the patient. In the context of CIED implants, complications include accidental Puncture of intrathoracic structures. Alternative strategies to intrathoracic subclavian Vein Puncture include cephalic Vein dissection or axillary Vein Puncture, which can be guided by fluoroscopy, venography or, more recently, ultrasound. In this article, the authors analyse the state of the art of ultrasound-guided axillary Vein Puncture using evidence from landmark studies in this field.
Rodrigo Petersen Saadi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
insights from the axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound versus cephalic Vein dissection trial
Future Cardiology, 2021Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Eduardo Keller Saadi, Carisi Anne PolanczykAbstract:Axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound (US-Ax) versus cephalic Vein dissection in pacemaker and defibrillator implant: a multicenter randomized clinical trial is a recently published study in which 88 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two methods. Even being performed by operators with not previous ultrasound-guided axillary Vein Puncture experience, this group presented a higher success rate, lower procedural time and comparable complication incidence.
-
axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound vs cephalic Vein dissection in pacemaker and defibrillator implant a multicenter randomized clinical trial
Heart Rhythm, 2020Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Eduardo Keller Saadi, Andres Di Leoni Ferrari, Carisi Anne PolanczykAbstract:Abstract Background Although still not standard, axillary Vein Puncture guided by ultrasound (US-Ax) has emerged as a valid alternative access route to pacemaker and defibrillator leads insertion. Objective To evaluate whether US-Ax compared to cephalic Vein dissection (CV) improves success and early complications in pacemaker or defibrillator implant. Methods Prospective, multicenter clinical trial including 88 adult patients randomized 1:1 to US-Ax (n=44) or CV (n=44). All procedures were performed by operators with no previous experience in axillary approach. Primary endpoint was defined as success rate. Secondary endpoints were venous access site change, time to obtain venous access, total procedural time, and early complication rate. Analyzes were carried out using the intention-to-treat principle. Results Median age was 70.5 years (58.2–79.7), and 60.2% were males. Considering the primary outcome, a higher success rate was observed in axillary group (97.7% vs. 54.5%; p Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial comparing self-learned US-Ax to CV in cardiac leads implantation. Our results indicate that the axillary approach was superior in terms of success rate, time to obtain venous access and procedural time, with similar complication rate.
-
ultrasound guided axillary Vein Puncture in cardiac lead implantation time to move to a new standard access
Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Review, 2020Co-Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari, Adriano Nunes Kochi, Rodrigo Petersen Saadi, Bernardo Mastella, Andres Di Leoni Ferrari, Luiz Henrique Dussin, Leandro De Moura, Marcio Rodrigo MartinsAbstract:Cardiac stimulation therapy has evolved significantly over the past 30 years. Currently, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are the mainstream therapy for many potentially lethal heart conditions, such as advanced atrioventricular block or sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Despite sometimes being lifesaving, the implant is surgical and therefore carries all the inevitable intrinsic risks. In the process of technology evolution, one of the most important factors is to make it safer for the patient. In the context of CIED implants, complications include accidental Puncture of intrathoracic structures. Alternative strategies to intrathoracic subclavian Vein Puncture include cephalic Vein dissection or axillary Vein Puncture, which can be guided by fluoroscopy, venography or, more recently, ultrasound. In this article, the authors analyse the state of the art of ultrasound-guided axillary Vein Puncture using evidence from landmark studies in this field.
