Caudal fluoroscopic guidance for the insertion of transvenous pacing leads.

BACKGROUND: Pneumothorax is a well-recognized complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) insertion. While AP fluoroscopy alone is the most commonly imaging technique for subclavian or axillary access, caudal fluoroscopy (angle 40°) is routinely used at our institution. The caudal view provides additional separation of the first rib and clavicle and may reduce the risk of pneumothorax. We assessed outcomes at our institution of AP and caudal fluoroscopic guided pacing lead insertion. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing transvenous lead insertion for pacemakers, defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices between 2011 and 2023. Both de novo and lead replacement/upgrade procedures were included. Data were extracted from operative, radiology, and discharge reports. All patients underwent postprocedure chest radiography. RESULTS: Three thousand two hundred fifty-two patients underwent insertion of pacing leads between February 2011 and March 2023. Mean age was 71.1 years (range 16-102) and 66.7% were male. Most (n = 2536; 78.0%) procedures used caudal guidance to obtain venous access, while 716 (22.0%) procedures used AP guidance alone. Pneumothoraxes occurred in five (0.2%) patients in the caudal group and five (0.7%) patients in the AP group (p = .03). Subclavian contrast venography was performed less frequently in the caudal group (26.2% vs. 42.7%, p < .01). CONCLUSION: Caudal fluoroscopy for axillary/subclavian access is associated with a lower rate of pneumothorax and contrast venography compared with an AP approach.

Subclavian and Axillary Vein Access Versus Cephalic Vein Cutdown for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transvenous access is a fundamental step during implantation of CIEDs. However, the preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate, and the decision depends on patient characteristics and operator experience. METHODS: A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian vein puncture (SVP) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) versus cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and various scientific conferences from inception to July 1, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were eligible that included 35,722 patients (SVP, n = 18,009; AVP, n = 409; and CVC, n = 17,304). Compared with CVC, SVP was associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax (RR: 4.88; 95% CI: 2.95 to 8.06) and device/lead failure (RR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.09), whereas there was no significant difference in these outcomes compared with AVP. Acute procedural success was significantly higher with SVP compared with CVC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.53). There was no significant difference in other complications such as pocket hematoma/bleeding, device infection, or pericardial effusion between SVP or AVP compared with CVC. CONCLUSIONS: CVC was associated with a lower risk of pneumothorax and lead failure compared with SVP. AVP and CVC are both effective approaches for CIED lead implantation and offer the potential to avoid the complications usually observed with traditional SVP.

Venous access and long-term pacemaker lead failure: comparing contrast-guided axillary vein puncture with subclavian puncture and cephalic cutdown.

AIMS: Existing data on the relationship between venous access and long-term pacemaker lead failure (PLF) are scarce and inconsistent. We aim to study the hypothesis that contrast-guided axillary vein puncture (AP) is better than subclavian puncture (SP) and similar to cephalic vein cutdown (CV) in the incidence of PLF and the success rate of AP is higher than CV. METHODS AND RESULTS: The case records of 409 patients with 681 implantable pacemaker leads were reviewed. Two hundred and fifty-two, 217, and 212 leads were implanted via AP, CV, and SP, respectively. With a mean follow-up of 73.6 ± 33.1 months, 20 (2.9%) PLF occurred. Three (1.2%), 5 (2.3%), and 12 (5.6%) PLF occurred in the AP, CV, and SP groups, respectively. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, the only independent predictor for PLF was the use of SP instead of AP (AP vs. SP; hazard ratio: 0.261; 95% confidence interval: 0.071-0.954, P = 0.042). The success rate of CV (78.2%) was significantly lower than those of AP (97.6%) and SP (96.8%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with SP, the use of AP but not CV independently predicted a lower risk of PLF. The success rates in achieving venous accesses were similar between AP and SP, but significantly lower for CV. Axillary vein puncture may thus be considered the venous access of choice for pacemaker lead implantation.

Pneumothorax related to subclavian vein puncture: analysis of the causes in 47 patients / 介入放射学杂志

Objective To investigate the risk factors that may induce pneumothorax resulted from subclavian vein puncture during interventional therapy for arrhythmia.Methods The clinical data of 4 351 patients with heart disease,who were admitted to Wuhan Asia Heart Disease Hospital,China,during the period from January 2010 to January 2014 to receive subclavian vein puncture for the performance of radiofrequency catheter ablation or pacemaker implantation,were retrospectively analyzed.The gender,age,presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the shape of clavicle of patients who developed pneumothorax were analyzed,and their relationships with the occurrence of pneumothorax were evaluated.Results Of the 4 351 patients,47 patients developed pneumothorax(1.08％),their age was 12-72 years old with a mean of (47.1±18.4) years old.Among the 47 patients,37 patients were females (78.7％).The angle between clavicle and sternum ＜60°(oblique clavicle) was seen in 27 patients,coexisting COPD was seen in 2 patients.The occurrence of pneumothorax was strikingly higher in females than that in males (OR=2.7,95％ CI=1.4-5.2).In patients with oblique clavicle the risk of pneumothorax was obviously increased (OR=3.5,95％ CI=1.6-7.9) and in patients with COPD the probability of pneumothorax was remarkably increased (OR=2.3,95％CI=1.2-4.7).No special treatment was employed in 5 pneumothorax patients,and the pneumothorax was absorbed by itself.In 19 patients,the pneumothorax was relieved through thoracic puncture and suction.Closed drainage of thoracic cavity was employed in 23 patients.All patients were discharged from hospital with complete rehabilitation.Conclusion Clinically,pneumothorax has been an important clinical problem in interventional therapy.In female patients and in patients who have oblique clavicle or coexisting COPD,pneumothorax is more likely to occur when they receive subclavian vein puncture.

Prospective randomized comparison of single pacemaker implantation using the subclavian vein puncture versus the cephalic vein cutdown / 中国综合临床

Objective To compare the value of pacemaker implantation using the subclavian vein (SCV) puncture and thecephalic vein(CV) cutdown approach.Methods One hundred and forty-six patients were randomized into SCV group (98 patients) and CV group (48 patients).We observed the success rate,surgery duration,fluoroscopy time and complications of the two groups.Results The SCV group had significantly higher success rate,shorter duration of surgery and fluoroscopy than the CV group (success rate:100％ (98/98) vs.89％ (43/48),x2 =10.5,P ＜ 0.05 ; duration of surgery:(118 ± 35) min vs.(256 ± 75)min,t =12.12,P ＜0.01 ; duration of fluoroscopy:(15 ±5) min vs.(35 ± 10) min,t =13.08,P ＜0.01).Both groups had one case who developed compilations which were pocket hematoma and wire electrode dislocation respectively.The rate of complications was not significantly different between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion The SCV approach should be considered a preferable access in pacemaker implantation.

Meta analysis of two approaches for central venous catheterization through deep vein puncture / 中国实用护理杂志

Objective The incidence rate of complication during central venous catheterization through internal jugular vein (IJV) and subclavian vein (SV) puncture. Methods Clinical controlled trials about IJV and SV puncture were collected and related literatures were screened according to the criteria of inclusion. The literatures underwent Meta analysis and subsequent analysis of sensitivity. Results A total of 18 literatures were included. Meta analysis indicated that statistical difference existed in the related infection rate [RR=1.74, 95%CI (1.32, 2.30)] and arterial puncture [RR=3.19, 95%CI (1.70, 5.99)], but not in the one-time-puncture success rate [RR=1.06, 95%CI (0.90, 1.24)] between IJV and SV puncture. Conclusions The rate of related infection and arterial puncture was higher by IJV than by SV puncture. But we could not confirm if any difference existed in the one-time-puncture success rate between the two methods. The results still needs evaluation by high-quality randomly controlled experiments.

Piercing the left lung with a pacemaker lead, an uncommon complication.

Although percutaneous insertion of pacemaker leads is a simple and safe method, it remains a procedure with a relatively high complication rate. We describe an uncommon and avoidable complication of this technique: piercing the lung with a pacemaker lead in an obese patient after direct puncture of the subclavian vein.

[Subclavian vein puncture as a primary approach for pacemaker lead implantation]. / Punktion der Vena subclavia als primärer Zugang bei der Schrittmacher-Sondenimplantation.

In the beginning of transvenous pacemaker therapy, the external or alternatively internal jugular vein was commonly used for lead implantation. Due to frequent long-term complications both approaches are nowadays obsolete. In most pacemaker centers implantation via the cephalic vein has become standard. As an alternative, in 1975 Sterz et al. introduced puncture of the subclavian vein in the Seldinger technique as an approach for lead implantation. At this time, the commonly used introducers of pacemaker leads had to be cut for removal. No earlier than 1980 "peel away" introducers were commercially available. Since then, we consequently use this technique for implantation of single or dual chamber pacemaker devices. In the course of the last seven years merely 1.5-2% of implantations were performed via the cephalic vein; no jugular vein approach was performed. Due to a routinely performed subclavian vein puncture, we were able to optimize the procedure, proven by an enormous reduction in implantation time (local anesthesia - skin closure), x-ray time and complication rate. In the year 2000 we performed 52 implantations of a single chamber device with an average fluoroscopy time of 1.5 (0.3-9.3) minutes, radiation dose of 4.5 (0.1-47) Gycm(2) and implantation time of 17.6 (8-40) minutes and 144 implantations of a dual chamber device with an average fluoroscopy time of 2.86 (0.7-6.6) minutes, radiation dose of 8.31 (0.7-28) Gycm(2) and implantation time of 21.25 (10-45) minutes. Complications were rare, clinically irrelevant arterial punctures. Neither nerval damage nor pneumothoraces with the necessity for chest tube placement were seen in the above mentioned time frame. No early or late thrombosis of the subclavian vein was encountered. The primary subclavian vein approach led to an enormous reduction in overall procedure time without significant morbidity.