Ultrasound Guided Versus Conventional Closure Device Deployment Following Transfemoral Endovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Rattachement africain : de, nl. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: Femoral access site complications influence short term survival and outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular procedures. While ultrasound guided puncture is a reliable method to reduce such complications, ultrasound guidance is rarely used for closure device deployment. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of ultrasound guided vascular closure device deployment compared with vascular closure device deployment without ultrasound guidance, referred to as conventional closure. All studies reporting on ultrasound guided closure in transfemoral arterial interventions were eligible, and those directly comparing ultrasound guided with conventional closure were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 2 738 patients receiving ultrasound guided closure were included: 1 025 for introducer sheaths measuring 12 F or larger and 1 713 for introducer sheaths smaller than 12 F. The incidence of access complications was 5.7% (range 0.8 - 21.6%) for large sheath procedures and 2.6% (range 0.9 - 4.7%) for small sheath procedures. The meta-analysis, which included 2 339 patients who received ultrasound guided closure and 1 175 who underwent conventional closure, showed that ultrasound guided closure was associated with reduced access site complications compared with conventional closure (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 - 0.65; p < .001). This was consistently seen both for small sheath (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 - 0.75; p = .002) and large sheath procedures (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 - 0.71; p < .001), but with a low certainty of evidence in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guided vessel closure of the femoral artery appeared to be associated with a lower rate of overall access site complications compared with conventional closure techniques. Therefore, ultrasound guided closure might offer the potential to increase procedural and patient safety in percutaneous arterial access.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Ultrasound Guided Versus Conventional Closure Device Deployment Following Transfemoral Endovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- Date Crossref
- 01/10/2025
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Department for Cardiology III - Angiology pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Maastricht University Medical Centre Department of Vascular Surgery pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisme public
-
University of Cologne Clinic III for Internal Medicine pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University Hospital Cologne pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Maastricht University Department of Vascular Surgery pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Department for Cardiology III - Angiology pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Faculty of Medicine Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Department for Cardiology III - Angiology — University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz et Department of Vascular Surgery — Maastricht University Medical Centre, avec 5 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.