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
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Aug;46(8):942-947.
doi: 10.1111/pace.14728. Epub 2023 Jun 28.

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

Giampaolo Vetta  1 , Michele Magnocavallo  2 , Antonio Parlavecchio  1 , Rodolfo Caminiti  1 , Marco Polselli  2 , Antonio Sorgente  3 , Filippo Maria Cauti  2 , Pasquale Crea  1 , Luigi Pannone  3 , Lorenzo Marcon  3 , Armando Lo Savio  1 , Lorenzo Pistelli  1 , Francesco Vetta  4 , Gian-Battista Chierchia  3 , Pietro Rossi  2 , Stefano Bianchi  2 , Andrea Natale  5 , Carlo de Asmundis  3 , Domenico G Della Rocca  5   3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Giampaolo Vetta et al. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2023 Aug.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: axillary vein puncture; cardiac implantable electronic device; cephalic vein cutdown; complications; lead implantation.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Mond HG, Proclemer A. The 11th world survey of cardiac pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: calendar year 2009-a world society of Arrhythmia's project. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011;34:1013-1027. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03150.x
    1. Furman S. Venous cutdown for pacemaker implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1986;41:438-439. doi:10.1016/s0003-4975(10)62705-1
    1. Bradshaw PJ, Stobie P, Knuiman MW, Briffa TG, Hobbs MST. Trends in the incidence and prevalence of cardiac pacemaker insertions in an ageing population. Open Heart. 2014:e000177. doi:10.1136/openhrt-2014-000177
    1. Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2021:ehab364. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab364
    1. Bongiorni MG, Proclemer A, Dobreanu D, Marinskis G, Pison L, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C. Scientific initiative committee, European Heart Rhythm Association 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

LinkOut - more resources