Accuracy and procedural characteristics of standard needle compared with radiofrequency needle transseptal puncture for structural heart interventions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Our objectives were to assess for differences between standard and radiofrequency (RF) needle in procedural times, success, and spatial accuracy. Background: Targeted transseptal (TS) puncture is essential for structural heart interventions. Spatial accuracy of standard versus RF needle has not been reported. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing structural heart interventions requiring TS puncture were studied retrospectively. A standard needle was alternated with a RF needle. Procedural success and times were recorded. Measurements based on intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiograms of the intended versus final TS crossing site were obtained. Pre-puncture and maximal tenting of the septum were also recorded. Results: Twenty-five patients underwent standard needle and 27 RF TS access. All RF needle attempts to cross were successful without an assistance wire. Three standard needle patients required assisted crossing. After failed TS access, two patients had successful RF TS access. TS procedural times significantly favored the RF needle for time from septum to puncture (P = 0.02). Both standard and RF access yielded accurate crossing with no significant differences between the intended and actual crossing site. Maximal tenting was significantly less with the RF needle (P = 0.004). There were no major complications. Conclusions: In the hands of an experienced operator, there were no major clinically significant differences between the standard and RF needle approaches. However, procedural unassisted crossing success was higher with the RF needle approach as compared to standard needle. Procedural times and degree of septum tenting favored the RF over standard needle. Accuracy was similar with both approaches. RF was a successful strategy when standard needle failed. There were no major complications with either TS puncture strategy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)E200-E206
JournalCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume89
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

Punctures
Needles

Keywords

  • atrium appendage
  • catheterization
  • mitral valve disease
  • percutaneous intervention
  • structural heart disease intervention
  • transesophageal echocardiography
  • transseptal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{06536185c79645b48add4e412083f237,
title = "Accuracy and procedural characteristics of standard needle compared with radiofrequency needle transseptal puncture for structural heart interventions",
abstract = "Objectives: Our objectives were to assess for differences between standard and radiofrequency (RF) needle in procedural times, success, and spatial accuracy. Background: Targeted transseptal (TS) puncture is essential for structural heart interventions. Spatial accuracy of standard versus RF needle has not been reported. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing structural heart interventions requiring TS puncture were studied retrospectively. A standard needle was alternated with a RF needle. Procedural success and times were recorded. Measurements based on intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiograms of the intended versus final TS crossing site were obtained. Pre-puncture and maximal tenting of the septum were also recorded. Results: Twenty-five patients underwent standard needle and 27 RF TS access. All RF needle attempts to cross were successful without an assistance wire. Three standard needle patients required assisted crossing. After failed TS access, two patients had successful RF TS access. TS procedural times significantly favored the RF needle for time from septum to puncture (P = 0.02). Both standard and RF access yielded accurate crossing with no significant differences between the intended and actual crossing site. Maximal tenting was significantly less with the RF needle (P = 0.004). There were no major complications. Conclusions: In the hands of an experienced operator, there were no major clinically significant differences between the standard and RF needle approaches. However, procedural unassisted crossing success was higher with the RF needle approach as compared to standard needle. Procedural times and degree of septum tenting favored the RF over standard needle. Accuracy was similar with both approaches. RF was a successful strategy when standard needle failed. There were no major complications with either TS puncture strategy.",
keywords = "atrium appendage, catheterization, mitral valve disease, percutaneous intervention, structural heart disease intervention, transesophageal echocardiography, transseptal",
author = "Gaurav Sharma and Gagan Singh and Smith, {Thomas W R} and Dali Fan and Reginald Low and Rogers, {Jason H}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ccd.26608",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "89",
pages = "E200--E206",
journal = "Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions",
issn = "1522-1946",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy and procedural characteristics of standard needle compared with radiofrequency needle transseptal puncture for structural heart interventions

AU - Sharma, Gaurav

AU - Singh, Gagan

AU - Smith, Thomas W R

AU - Fan, Dali

AU - Low, Reginald

AU - Rogers, Jason H

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Objectives: Our objectives were to assess for differences between standard and radiofrequency (RF) needle in procedural times, success, and spatial accuracy. Background: Targeted transseptal (TS) puncture is essential for structural heart interventions. Spatial accuracy of standard versus RF needle has not been reported. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing structural heart interventions requiring TS puncture were studied retrospectively. A standard needle was alternated with a RF needle. Procedural success and times were recorded. Measurements based on intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiograms of the intended versus final TS crossing site were obtained. Pre-puncture and maximal tenting of the septum were also recorded. Results: Twenty-five patients underwent standard needle and 27 RF TS access. All RF needle attempts to cross were successful without an assistance wire. Three standard needle patients required assisted crossing. After failed TS access, two patients had successful RF TS access. TS procedural times significantly favored the RF needle for time from septum to puncture (P = 0.02). Both standard and RF access yielded accurate crossing with no significant differences between the intended and actual crossing site. Maximal tenting was significantly less with the RF needle (P = 0.004). There were no major complications. Conclusions: In the hands of an experienced operator, there were no major clinically significant differences between the standard and RF needle approaches. However, procedural unassisted crossing success was higher with the RF needle approach as compared to standard needle. Procedural times and degree of septum tenting favored the RF over standard needle. Accuracy was similar with both approaches. RF was a successful strategy when standard needle failed. There were no major complications with either TS puncture strategy.

AB - Objectives: Our objectives were to assess for differences between standard and radiofrequency (RF) needle in procedural times, success, and spatial accuracy. Background: Targeted transseptal (TS) puncture is essential for structural heart interventions. Spatial accuracy of standard versus RF needle has not been reported. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing structural heart interventions requiring TS puncture were studied retrospectively. A standard needle was alternated with a RF needle. Procedural success and times were recorded. Measurements based on intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiograms of the intended versus final TS crossing site were obtained. Pre-puncture and maximal tenting of the septum were also recorded. Results: Twenty-five patients underwent standard needle and 27 RF TS access. All RF needle attempts to cross were successful without an assistance wire. Three standard needle patients required assisted crossing. After failed TS access, two patients had successful RF TS access. TS procedural times significantly favored the RF needle for time from septum to puncture (P = 0.02). Both standard and RF access yielded accurate crossing with no significant differences between the intended and actual crossing site. Maximal tenting was significantly less with the RF needle (P = 0.004). There were no major complications. Conclusions: In the hands of an experienced operator, there were no major clinically significant differences between the standard and RF needle approaches. However, procedural unassisted crossing success was higher with the RF needle approach as compared to standard needle. Procedural times and degree of septum tenting favored the RF over standard needle. Accuracy was similar with both approaches. RF was a successful strategy when standard needle failed. There were no major complications with either TS puncture strategy.

KW - atrium appendage

KW - catheterization

KW - mitral valve disease

KW - percutaneous intervention

KW - structural heart disease intervention

KW - transesophageal echocardiography

KW - transseptal

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019103191&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019103191&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ccd.26608

DO - 10.1002/ccd.26608

M3 - Article

C2 - 27220107

AN - SCOPUS:85019103191

VL - 89

SP - E200-E206

JO - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1522-1946

IS - 6

ER -