Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 10, 2026
Upper-extremity Approach for Secondary Access in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Published on: August 8, 2025
Differences in complication rates between large bore needle and a long micropuncture needle during epicardial access:
Sampath Gunda1, Madhu Reddy1, Jayasree Pillarisetti1
1From the Department of Cardiology, Mid-America Cardiology and University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City (S.G., M.R., J.P., M.A., D.L.); Department of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco (N.B., R.L.); Department of Cardiology, Arizona Heart Rhythm Center, Phoenix (V.S.); Department of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY (L.D.); Department of Cardiology, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, St. David's Medical Center, Austin (S.M., P.M., A.N.); Nebraska Heart Institute, Lincoln (H.N.); Department of Cardiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN (C.E.); Department of Cardiology, Texas Heart Institute at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Houston (A.R.); Department of Cardiology, Texas Heart Institute, Houston (J.C.); and Department of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland (K.B.).
Background:
A dry epicardial access (EA) is increasingly used for advanced cardiovascular procedures. Conventionally used large bore needles (Tuohy or Pajunk needle; LBN) have been associated with low but definite incidence of major complications with EA. Use of micropuncture needle (MPN) may decrease the risk of complications. We intended to compare the outcomes of LBN with MPN for EA.
Methods And Results:
We report a multicenter observational study of consecutive patients who underwent EA for ventricular tachycardia ablation or Lariat procedure using the LBN or MPN. Oral anticoagulation was stopped before the procedure. Baseline characteristics and procedure-related complications were collected and compared. Of the 404 patients, LBN and MPN were used in 46% and 54% of patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of inadvertent puncture of myocardium between LBN and MPN (7.6% versus 6.8%, P=0.76). However, there was a significantly higher rate of large pericardial effusions with LBN compared with MPN (8.1% versus 0.9%; P<0.001). The incidence of pleural effusions were not significantly different between both (1.6% versus 2.3%; P=0.64). LBN group had an increase in other complications compared with MPN (open heart surgery to repair cardiac laceration [6 versus 0], injury to liver [1 versus 0], coronaries [1 versus 0], and superior epigastric artery requiring surgical exploration [0 versus 1]).
Conclusions:
The use of MPN is associated with decreased incidence of major complications, and the need for surgical repair and routine use should be considered for EA.
