Different venous approaches for implantation of cardiac electronic devices. A network meta-analysis

Safety and Efficiency of Cephalic Vein Puncture by Modified Seldinger Technique Compared to Subclavian Vein Puncture for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

INTRODUCTION

The establishment of venous access is one of the driving factors for complications during implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators (cardiac implantable electronic devices [CIED]). Recently, a novel approach of accessing the cephalic vein for CIED by cephalic vein puncture (CVP) using a modified Seldinger technique has been described, promising high success rates and simplified handling with steeper learning curves. In this single-center registry, we analyzed the safety and efficiency of CVP to SVP access after defining CVP as the primary access route in our center.

METHODS

A total of 229 consecutive patients receiving a CIED were included in the registry. Sixty-one patients were implanted by primary or bail-out SVP; 168 patients received primary cephalic preparation and CVP was performed when possible, using a hydrophilic transradial sheath.

RESULTS

Implantation of at least one lead via CVP was successful in 151 of 168 patients (90%), and implantation of all leads was possible in 122 of 168 patients (72.6%). Total implantation times and fluoroscopy times and doses did not differ between CVP and SVP implantations. Pneumothorax occurred in 0/122 patients implanted via CVP alone, but 8/107 (7.5%) patients received at least one lead via SVP.

CONCLUSION

Our data confirms high success rates of the CVP for CIED implantation. Moreover, this method can be used without significantly prolonging the total procedure time or applying fluoroscopy dose compared to the highly efficient SVP while showing lower overall complication rates.

Ultrasound-Guided Venous Axillary Access Versus Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation: ZEROFLUOROAXI Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Axillary vein puncture (AVP) and cephalic vein surgical cutdown are recommended in international guidelines because of their low risk of pneumothorax and chronic lead complications. Directly visualizing and puncturing the axillary vein under ultrasound guidance reduces radiation exposure, provides direct needle visualization, and lowers periprocedural complications. Our hypothesis is that ultrasound-guided axillary access is safer and more feasible than the standard fluoroscopic technique.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided axillary venous access during cardiac lead implantation for pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations.

METHODS

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either axillary venous access under fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound-guided axillary venous access. The composite outcome, including pneumothorax, hemothorax, inadvertent arterial puncture, pocket hematoma, pocket infection, lead dislodgement, and death, was evaluated 30 days after implantation.

RESULTS

We randomized 270 patients into 2 groups: the standard group for fluoroguided AVP (n = 134) and the experimental group for ultrasound-guided AVP (n = 136). No disparities in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. The median age of the patients was 81 years, with women comprising 41% of the population. The majority of patients received single- and dual-chamber PMs (87% vs 88%; P = 1.00), and slightly over 10% in both groups received ICDs (13% vs 12%; P = 0.85). In total, we placed 357 leads in PMs and 48 leads in ICDs. Among these, 295 leads were inserted via axillary vein access and 110 via cephalic vein access. Notably, the subclavian vein was never used as a vascular access. The composite outcome was lower in the ultrasound group according to intention-to-treat analysis (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31-0.99; P = 0.034). The main difference within the composite outcome was the lower incidence of inadvertent axillary arterial puncture in the experimental group (17% vs 6%; P = 0.004). The ultrasound group also exhibited lower total procedural x-ray exposure (10,344 μGy × cm2 vs 7,119 μGy × cm2; P = 0.002) while achieving the same rate of success at the first attempt (61% vs 69%; P = 0.375).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided AVP is safer than the fluoroscopy-guided approach because it achieves the same rate of acute success while maintaining low total procedural radiation exposure. Ultrasound AVP should be considered the optimal venous access method for cardiac lead implantation. (Ultrasound Guided Axillary Access vs Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation [ZEROFLUOROAXI]; NCT05101720).