Pre-Procedure Duplex Ultrasonography to Assist Cephalic Vein Isolation in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Implantation

Pacemaker placement and shoulder surgery: is there a risk?

INTRODUCTION

Surgery to the anterior aspect of the shoulder is performed by many surgical specialties but the techniques used by our cardiology colleagues for insertion of cardiac pacemaker wires are often not appreciated by the surgical community. The deltopectoral approach has been used for open pacemaker wire insertion for many years by cardiologists.

METHODS

We surveyed a group of subspecialty shoulder surgeons as well as orthopaedic trainees to see if this approach for pacemakers is well recognised. We tried to assess what level of knowledge exists regarding pacemaker placement in general as well as specific risks.

RESULTS

There appears to be a paucity of knowledge regarding pacemaker placement and related patient safety issues in both surveyed groups. There was no difference between the two groups, suggesting that the level of knowledge does not increase with experience and specialisation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is the potential to cause harm to patients if the insertion site and type of device is not identified before commencing surgery in this region and steps must be taken to minimise any intra-operative risk. There is a risk from direct injury to the pacemaker and/or leads as well as the hazards of using diathermy in close proximity to a pacemaker. There must be more widespread dissemination of this information in order to minimise risks to patients with pacemakers in situ.

Ultrasonographic Predictors of Unsuccessful Cephalic Vein Approach During Pacemaker or Defibrillator Lead Implantation

BACKGROUND

The cephalic vein approach is a preferred route for endocardial lead implantation; however, it is associated with a significant failure rate. Anatomic abnormalities likely play an important role, but specific features have not been well characterized.

METHODS

Color Doppler ultrasonography was performed in 82 consecutive patients prior to endocardial lead implantation. Venous diameter, depth, flow velocity, and morphology were evaluated and comparisons made between the successful and failed implantations at various stages of the procedure.

RESULTS

Endocardial lead implantation was unsuccessful in 14 patients (17%), with eight patients of venous isolation failure, 4 patients of cannulation failure, and 2 patients of guidewire crossing failure. Venous diameter was found to be the only independent predictor for isolation and implantation failure. The best cutoff value of cephalic venous diameter to predict unsuccessful cephalic venous approach was < or = 2.2 mm. In total, there were 10 patients with extensive cephalic vein tortuosity. In seven of these 10 patients, the incidence of standard guidewire crossing failure was significantly higher than that without a tortuous cephalic vein (7/10 vs 6/60, P < 0.001). After switching to a hydrophilic guidewire, crossing and navigation were successful in five of the seven patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Color Doppler imaging is useful to identify cephalic vein characteristics. A small venous diameter is the ultrasonographic predictor for failure of cephalic vein approach. A tortuous venous morphology is associated with a high incidence of guidewire crossing failure, which can be mostly overcome by using a hydrophilic guidewire.