Predictors of successful ultrasound‐guided lead implantation

Infiltration and Extravasation Risk with Midline Catheters: A Narrative Literature Review

Midline catheters have recently gained popularity in clinical use, with a common reason being the reduction of central venous catheter use and central line-associated bloodstream infections. At the same time, the number of nononcology vesicant medications has increased, and midline catheters are frequently being used for infusions of vesicant medications. The Infusion Nurses Society (INS) Vesicant Task Force identified midline catheter use as a possible risk factor for extravasation and concluded that a thorough literature review was necessary. This review highlights the variations in catheter terminology and tip locations, the frequency of infiltration and extravasation in published studies, and case reports of infiltration and extravasation from midline catheters. It also examines the many clinical issues requiring evidence-based decision-making for the most appropriate type of vascular access devices. After more than 30 years of clinical practice with midline catheters and what appears to be a significant number of studies, evidence is still insufficient to answer questions about infusion of vesicant and irritant medications through midline catheters. Given the absence of consensus on tip location, inadequate evidence of clinical outcomes, and importance of patient safety, the continuous infusion of vesicants, all parenteral nutrition formulas, and infusates with extremes in pH and osmolarity should be avoided through midline catheters.

Intra-pocket ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture vs. cephalic vein cutdown for cardiac electronic device implantation: the ACCESS trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Intra-pocket ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture (IPUS-AVP) for venous access in implantation of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is uncommon due to the lack of clinical evidence supporting this technique. This study investigated the efficacy and early complications of IPUS-AVP compared to the standard method using cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation.

METHODS

ACCESS was an investigator-led, interventional, randomized (1:1 ratio), monocentric, controlled superiority trial. A total of 200 patients undergoing CIED implantation were randomized to IPUS-AVP (n = 101) or CVC (n = 99) as a first assigned route. The primary endpoint was the success rate of insertion of all leads using the first assigned venous access technique. The secondary endpoints were time to venous access, total procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, X-ray exposure, and complications. Complications were monitored during a follow-up period of three months after procedure.

RESULTS

IPUS-AVP was significantly superior to CVC for the primary endpoint with 100 (99.0%) vs. 86 (86.9%) procedural successes (P = .001). Cephalic vein cutdown followed by subclavian vein puncture was successful in a total of 95 (96.0%) patients, P = .21 vs. IPUS-AVP. All secondary endpoints were also significantly improved in the IPUS-AVP group with reduction in time to venous access [3.4 vs. 10.6 min, geometric mean ratio (GMR) 0.32 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.28-0.36), P < .001], total procedure duration [33.8 vs. 46.9 min, GMR 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.78), P < .001], fluoroscopy time [2.4 vs. 3.3 min, GMR 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.86), P < .001], and X-ray exposure [1083 vs. 1423 mGy.cm², GMR 0.76 (95% CI 0.62-0.93), P = .009]. There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups (P = .68).

CONCLUSIONS

IPUS-AVP is superior to CVC in terms of success rate, time to venous access, procedure duration, and radiation exposure. Complication rates were similar between the two groups. Intra-pocket ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture should be a recommended venous access technique for CIED implantation.

Ultrasound utilization for implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices

Ultrasound (US) guidance for implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is currently not routine practice. This article sought to review published data on the use of ultrasound in each of the major surgical steps involved in implantation of CIEDs, including achieving anesthesia, obtaining venous access and implantation of leads. A literature review was performed, revealing a total of 20 peer-reviewed studies that assessed US guidance for CIED implantation; 3 of these were randomized trials while the remainder were mostly feasibility studies. The available data suggest that ultrasound can be useful in guiding implantation of CIEDs, with a trend towards less complication rates; however, more high-quality studies that compare US guidance to traditional techniques in CIED implantation are required.

Ultrasound-guided access to the axillary vein for implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aims of our systematic review were to quantify the expected rate of procedural success, early and late complications during CIED implantation using US-guided puncture of the axillary vein and to perform a meta-analysis of those studies that compared the US technique (intervention) versus conventional techniques (control) in terms of complication rates. MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Pooled Odds Ratio (OR) and Pooled Mean Difference (PMD) for each predictor were calculated. The quality of evidence (QOE) was evaluated according to the GRADE guidelines. Thirteen studies were included a total of 2073 patients. The overall success of US-guided venipuncture for CIED implantation was 96.8%. As regards early complications, pneumothorax occurred in 0.19%, arterial puncture in 0.63%, and severe hematoma/bleeding requiring intervention in 1.1%. No cases of hemothorax, brachial plexus, or phrenic nerve injury were reported. As regards late complications, the incidence of pocket infection, venous thromboembolism, and leads dislodgement was respectively 0.4%, 0.8%, and 1.2%. In the meta-analysis (five studies), the intervention group (US-guided venipuncture) had a trend versus a lower likelihood of having a pneumothorax (0.19% vs 0.75%, p = 0.21), pocket hematoma (0.8% vs 1.7%, p = 0.32), infection (0.28% vs 1.05%, p = 0.29) than the control group, but this did not reach statistical significance. The overall QOE was low or very low. In conclusions we found that the US-guided axillary venipuncture for CIEDs implantation was associated with a low incidence of early and late complications and a steep learning curve.

Ultrasound-guided vascular access for CIED implantation: A step-by-step guide

INTRODUCTION

Vascular access is required for most cardiac electrophysiology procedures. Over the past 2 decades, ultrasound guidance has increased in utilization as the primary method for assisting operators in gaining access to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

METHODS

Ultrasound guidance using a technique that includes both short-axis and long-axis views combined with a twisting needle motion after maximal tenting provides an extremely safe and reproducible technique for vascular access for all CIED procedures.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this manuscript and accompanying videos, a step-by-step guide is explained for optimal ultrasound-guided visualization and needle maneuver technique to maximize safety and efficiency for vascular access in all CIED procedures.

UltraSound Axillary Vein Access (USAA): Learning curve and randomized comparison to traditional venous access for cardiac device implantation

BACKGROUND

Many techniques exist for venous access (VA) during cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the learning curve with ultrasound (US) guided axillary vein access (USAA).

METHODS

Single-center prospective randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing CIED implantation. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to USAA versus conventional VA techniques. The primary outcomes were the success rates, VA times and 30-day complication rates.

RESULTS

The study included 100 patients (age 68 ± 14 years, BMI 27 ± 4 kg/m² ). USAA was successful in 66/70 implants (94%). Initial attempts at conventional VA included 47% axillary (n = 14), 30% (n = 9) cephalic, and 23% (n = 7) subclavian. The median access time was longer for USAA than conventional access (8.3 IQR 4.2-15.3 min vs. 5.2 IQR 3.4-8.6 min, p = .009). Among the five inexperienced USAA implanters, there was a significant improvement in median access time from first to last tertile of USAA implants (17.0 IQR 7.0-21.0 min to 8.6 IQR 4.5-10.8 min, p = .038). The experienced USAA implanter had similar access times with USAA compared with conventional access (4.0 IQR 3.3-4.7 min vs. 5.2 IQR 3.4-8.6 min, p = .15). Venograms were less common with USAA than conventional access (2% vs. 33%, p < .0001). The 30-day complication rate was similar with USAA (n = 4/70, 6%) versus conventional (n = 3/30, 10%, p = .44).

CONCLUSION

Although the success rate with USAA was high, there was a significant learning curve. Once experienced with the USAA technique, there is the potential for reduced complications without adding to the procedure duration.

Case report: A rare complication after the implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device: Contralateral pneumothorax with pneumopericardium and pneumomediastinum

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) including pacemakers (PM), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronized therapy (CRT) have become the mainstay of therapy for many cardiac conditions, consequently drawing attention to the risks and benefits of these procedures. Although CIED implantation is usually a safe procedure, pneumothorax remains an important complication and may contribute to increased morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and hospital costs. On the other hand, pneumopericardium and pneumomediastinum are rare but potentially fatal complications. Accordingly, a high degree of awareness about these complications is important. Pneumothorax almost always occurs on the ipsilateral side of implantation. The development of contralateral pneumothorax is uncommon and may be undetected on an initial chest radiograph. Contralateral pneumothorax with concurrent pneumopericardium and pneumomediastinum is much rarer. We describe a rare case of concurrent right-sided pneumothorax with pneumopericardium and pneumomediastinum after left-sided pacemaker implantation and highlight the risk factors, management, and possible ways to prevent the complications.

A Practical Guide to Ultrasound-guided Venous Access During Implantation of Pacemakers and Defibrillators

Ultrasound (US) guidance has been shown to be a safe and effective option for gaining access to the axillary vein during implantation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, US-based technique has not been universally adopted in CIED implantations performed in cardiac electrophysiology (EP) laboratories, despite potential advantages over other vascular access techniques. For this reason, not all cardiac electrophysiologists have been trained to use US guidance during CIED implantation. This review is intended to provide a practical guide to the use of US guidance to obtain axillary vein access in the EP laboratory setting.

EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

With the global increase in device implantations, there is a growing need to train physicians to implant pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although there are international recommendations for device indications and programming, there is no consensus to date regarding implantation technique. This document is founded on a systematic literature search and review, and on consensus from an international task force. It aims to fill the gap by setting standards for device implantation.

Feasibility study for echocardiography-guided lead insertion for permanent cardiac implantable electronic devices

Background

Permanent cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are traditionally implanted with the assistance of fluoroscopy. While clinically effective, this technique exposes both patients and providers to radiation which is associated with adverse health effects and represents an occupational hazard. In this study, we investigate the safety and feasibility of permanent CIED placement under the guidance of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). There is also increasing interest in use of non‐fluoroscopic options for noninvasive cardiac electrophysiologic procedures.

Methods

Fifteen patients consecutively consented for initial implant of CIEDs, specifically dual chamber pacemakers (DCPM) and dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (DCICDs). Patients were excluded if they had previous implants, abandoned leads, or anatomic anomalies including congenital and known persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC). We used TTE to guide and implant atrial and ventricular leads.

Results

Eleven patients received DCPMs and four patients received DCICDs. The procedure duration was 49.3 min for DCICD and 52.3 min for DCPM, p = .807. The average number of right atrial lead attempts was 1.6 for DCPMs and 1.8 for DCICD, p = .860. The average number of right ventricular lead attempts for DCPMs was 2.2 and 1.0 attempt for DCICDs, p = .044. There were no complications at 90‐day follow‐up.

Conclusion

We demonstrate the feasibility of TTE‐guided DCPM/DCICD implantation without use of fluoroscopy. We present this method as a safe alternative for permanent CIED placement that may reduce risk of radiation exposure and cost while maintaining safety and efficacy. No operators wore lead aprons during the procedure.

Axillary vein access for antiarrhythmic cardiac device implantation: a literature review

The current narrative review provides an update of available knowledge on venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, with a focus on axillary vein puncture. Lower procedure-related and lead-related complications have been reported with extrathoracic vein puncture techniques compared with intrathoracic accesses. In particular, extrathoracic lead access through the axillary vein seems to be associated with lower complication incidence than subclavian vein puncture and higher success rate than cephalic vein cutdown. In literature, many techniques have been described for axillary vein access. The use of contrast venography-guided puncture has facilitated the diffusion of the axillary vein approach for device implantation. Venography may be particularly useful in specific demographic and clinical device implantation contexts. Ultrasound-guided or microwire-guided vascular access for lead positioning can be considered a valid alternative to venography, although current applications for axillary vein puncture need further evaluations.

Ultrasound guided percutaneous cephalic venipuncture for implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Preoperative ultrasound (US) for cephalic cut-down is related to shorter procedure time and higher success rate. This study aimed to assess efficiency of US-guided percutaneous cephalic vein (CV) puncture for placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

METHODS

Patients undergoing a procedure including both US-guided pectoral nerve block (PECS) and percutaneous CV puncture were retrospectively investigated. Patient medical history and demographic data was collected. Clinical features of the procedures and intra- and post-operative complications occurring were collected from patient records. Clinical data included target vessel features, and the time taken for the following: CV puncture; CV and PECS puncture; total procedure.

RESULTS

In total 34 patients had CV puncture with US-guided PECS block was attempted in all patients and the procedure was successful in 27 of 34 (79.4%) patients. The total number of CV puncture attempts was 62 for 34 leads (mean attempts per lead = 1.82). The mean ± standard deviation time for CV puncture was 137.5 ± 27.4 s. There were no venous access-related complications.

CONCLUSION

US-guided CV puncture appears feasible and safe with an acceptable success rate. In case of failure of the US-guided axillary or subclavian vein approach, it may be preferred as an alternative to the cephalic cut-down procedure, where the success rate is relatively lower and the risk of bleeding is higher.

Ultrasound guided axillary vein access: An alternative approach to venous access for cardiac device implantation

INTRODUCTION

Ultrasound guided axillary vein access (UGAVA) is an emerging approach for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation not widely utilized.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a retrospective, age and sex-matched cohort study of CIED implantation from January 2017 to July 2019 comparing UGAVA before incision to venous access obtained after incision without ultrasound (conventional). The study population included 561 patients (187 with attempted UGAVA, 68 ± 13 years old, 43% women, body mass index (BMI) 30 ± 8 kg/m² , 15% right-sided, 43% implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 15% upgrades). UGAVA was successful in 178/187 patients (95%). In nine patients where UGAVA was abandoned, the vein was too deep for access before incision. BMI was higher in abandoned patients than successful UGAVA (38 ± 6 vs. 28 ± 6 kg/m² , p < .0001). Median time from local anesthetic to completion of UGAVA was 7 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 4-10) and median procedure time 61 min (IQR: 50-92). UGAVA changed implant laterality in two patients (avoiding an extra incision in both) and could have prevented unnecessary incision in four conventional patients. Excluding device upgrades, there was reduced fluoroscopy time in UGAVA versus conventional (4 vs. 6 min; IQR: 2-5 vs. 4-9; p < .001). Thirty-day complications were similar in UGAVA versus conventional (n = 7 vs. 26, 4 vs. 7%; p = .13, p = .41 adjusting for upgrades), partly driven by a trend towards reduced pneumothorax (n = 0 vs. 3, 0 vs. 1%; p = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

UGAVA is a safe approach for CIED implantation and helps prevent an extra incision if a barrier is identified changing laterality preincision.