Axillary vein puncture versus cephalic vein cutdown for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) are both recommended for transvenous implantation of leads for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Nonetheless, it is still debated which of the two techniques has a better safety and efficacy profile.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to September 5, 2022, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of AVP and CVC reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary endpoints were acute procedural success and overall complications. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Overall, seven studies were included, which enrolled 1771 and 3067 transvenous leads (65.6% [n = 1162] males, average age 73.4 ± 14.3 years). Compared to CVC, AVP showed a significant increase in the primary endpoint (95.7 % vs. 76.1 %; RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.09-1.40; p = .001) (Figure 1). Total procedural time (mean difference [MD]: -8.25 min; 95% CI: -10.23 to -6.27; p < .0001; I2  = 0%) and venous access time (MD: -6.24 min; 95% CI: -7.01 to -5.47; p < .0001; I2  = 0%) were significantly shorter with AVP compared to CVC. No differences were found between AVP and CVC for incidence overall complications (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.28-1.10; p = .09), pneumothorax (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.13-4.0; p = .71), lead failure (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.23-1.48; p = .26), pocket hematoma/bleeding (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.15-2.23; p = .43), device infection (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.14-6.60; p = .96) and fluoroscopy time (MD: -0.24 min; 95% CI: -0.75 to 0.28; p = .36).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that AVP may improve procedural success and reduce total procedural time and venous access time compared to CVC.

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.