Comparison of the axillary venous approach and subclavian venous approach for efficacy of permanent pacemaker implantation. 8-Year follow-up results

Abstract

Background: Long-term data on lead complication rates are limited for both the axillary and subclavian venous approaches for permanent pacemaker implantation.

Methods and results: We conducted a single-center, retrospective, nonrandomized comparison. We reviewed the patients who had consented to receiving a permanent pacemaker implant. A superficial landmark or radiographic contrast guiding was used for the axillary venous approach, whereas conventional landmarks were used for the subclavian venous approach. From January 1992 to December 2005, we analyzed 1,161 permanent pacemaker leads in 655 patients [subclavian venous approach (group I: 338 patients, 542 leads) and axillary venous approach (group II: 317 patients, 619 leads)]. Baseline characteristics of the patients did not differ. However, DDD-pacemakers and atrial leads were used more often in group II than in group I (94% vs. 62% and 49% vs. 40%, P<0.01). During the 8-year follow-up, lead complication rates were lower in group II (17 leads, 3%) than in group I (31 leads, 6%) (P=0.03), and group II had a better complication-free survival curve than group I with a 49% relative risk reduction in lead complication rates (hazard ratio =0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.94; P=0.03).

Conclusions: The axillary venous approach for permanent pacemaker implantation has better long-term efficacy and lower lead complication rates than the subclavian venous approach.