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

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.