Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 8;11(2):265.
doi: 10.3390/biology11020265.

Vascular Accesses in Cardiac Stimulation and Electrophysiology: An Italian Survey Promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing)

Matteo Ziacchi  1 , Angelo Placci  2 , Andrea Angeletti  1 , Fabio Quartieri  3 , Cristina Balla  4 , Santo Virzi  5 , Matteo Bertini  4 , Roberto De Ponti  6 , Mauro Biffi  1 , Giuseppe Boriani  7 , For Aiac Ricerca Investigators' Network
Affiliations

Vascular Accesses in Cardiac Stimulation and Electrophysiology: An Italian Survey Promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing)

Matteo Ziacchi et al. Biology (Basel). .

Abstract

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implants and electrophysiological procedures share a common step: vascular access. On behalf of the AIAC Ricerca Investigators' Network, we conducted a survey to outline Italian common practice regarding vascular access in EP-lab. All Italian physicians with experience in CIED implantation and electrophysiology were invited to answer an online questionnaire (from May 2020 to November 2020) featuring 20 questions. In total, 103 cardiologists (from 92 Italian hospitals) answered the survey. Vascular access during CIED implants was considered the most complex step following lead placement by 54 (52.4%) respondents and the most complex for 35 (33.9%). In total, 54 (52.4%) and 49 (47.6%) respondents considered the cephalic and subclavian vein the first option, respectively (intrathoracic and extrathoracic subclavian/axillary vein by 22 and 27, respectively). In total, 45 (43.7%) respondents performed close arterial femoral accesses manually; only 12 (11.7%) respondents made extensive use of vascular closure devices. A total of 46 out of 103 respondents had experience in ultrasound-guided vascular accesses, but only 10 (22%) used it for more than 50% of the accesses. In total, 81 (78.6%) respondents wanted to increase their ultrasound-guided vascular access skills. Reducing complications is a goal to reach in cardiac stimulation and electrophysiological procedures. Our survey shows the heterogeneity of the vascular approaches used in Italian centres. Some vascular accesses were proved to be superior to others in terms of complications, with ultrasound-guided puncture as an emerging technique. More effort to produce the standardization of vascular accesses could be made by scientific societies.

Keywords: CIED; electrophysiology; survey; vascular access.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ziacchi M has received lecture fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Respondents’ characteristics: (A) Age of the respondents; (B) respondents’ experience in EP-LAB; (C) number of CIED implantations by year; (D) number of EP studies and ablations by year.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Favorite venous accesses for CIED implantation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Visualization of axillary vein with echo.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Burri H., Starck C., Auricchio A., Biffi M., Burri M., D’Avila A.L.R., Deharo J.C., Glikson M., Israel C., Lau C.A.R., et al. EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) Europace. 2021;23:983–1008. doi: 10.1093/europace/euaa367. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bongiorni M.G., Proclemer A., Dobreanu D., Marinskis G., Pison L., Blomstrom-Lundqvist C., Scientific Initiative Committee E.H.R.A. Preferred tools and techniques for implantation of cardiac electronic devices in Europe: Results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace. 2013;15:1664–1668. doi: 10.1093/europace/eut345. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Atti V., Turagam M.K., Garg J., Koerber S., Angirekula A., Gopinathannair R., Natale A., Lakkireddy D. Subclavian and Axillary Vein Access Versus Cephalic Vein Cutdown for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Meta-Analysis. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2020;6:661–671. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.01.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benz A.P., Vamos M., Erath J.W., Hohnloser S.H. Cephalic vs. subclavian lead implantation in cardiac implantable electronic devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace. 2019;21:121–129. doi: 10.1093/europace/euy165. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Magney J.E., Flynn D.M., Parsons J.A., Staplin D.H., Chin-Purcell M.V., Milstein S., Hunter D.W. Anatomical mechanisms explaining damage to pacemaker leads, defibrillator leads, and failure of central venous catheters adjacent to the sternoclavicular joint. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. PACE. 1993;16:445–457. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1993.tb01607.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources