Introduction Ultrasound guided axillary vein access (UGAVA) is an emerging approach for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation not widely utilized. Methods and Results This is a retrospective, age and sex‐matched cohort study of CIED implantation from January 2017 to July 2019 comparing UGAVA before incision to venous access obtained after incision without ultrasound (conventional). The study population included 561 patients (187 with attempted UGAVA, 68 ± 13 years old, 43% women, body mass index (BMI) 30 ± 8 kg/m2, 15% right‐sided, 43% implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator, 15% upgrades). UGAVA was successful in 178/187 patients (95%). In nine patients where UGAVA was abandoned, the vein was too deep for access before incision. BMI was higher in abandoned patients than successful UGAVA (38 ± 6 vs. 28 ± 6 kg/m2, p < .0001). Median time from local anesthetic to completion of UGAVA was 7 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 4–10) and median procedure time 61 min (IQR: 50–92). UGAVA changed implant laterality in two patients (avoiding an extra incision in both) and could have prevented unnecessary incision in four conventional patients. Excluding device upgrades, there was reduced fluoroscopy time in UGAVA versus conventional (4 vs. 6 min; IQR: 2–5 vs. 4–9; p < .001). Thirty‐day complications were similar in UGAVA versus conventional (n = 7 vs. 26, 4 vs. 7%; p = .13, p = .41 adjusting for upgrades), partly driven by a trend towards reduced pneumothorax (n = 0 vs. 3, 0 vs. 1%; p = .22). Conclusions UGAVA is a safe approach for CIED implantation and helps prevent an extra incision if a barrier is identified changing laterality preincision.

Background: The association of atrial fibrillation (AF) with cancer and cancer types is inconclusive. Similarly, data regarding the association of AF with different cancer therapies are controversial.Objectives: To study the association of AF with cancer subtypes and cancer therapies.Methods: We studied all patients aged 18–89 years who presented to the Feist Weiller Cancer Center, with or without a diagnosis of cancer, between January 2011 and February 2016. Electronic health records were systematically queried for baseline demographics and ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for specific co-morbidities. Patients with a diagnosis of AF were tabulated based on cross-validation with the ECG database and/or by recorded history. We assessed the prevalence and risk of AF based on cancer diagnosis, specific cancer type, and cancer therapy.Results: A total of 14,600 patients were analyzed. Compared to non-cancer patients (n = 6,801), cancer patients (n = 7,799) had a significantly higher prevalence of AF (4.3 vs. 3.1%; p &lt; 0.001). However, following correction for covariates in a multivariable logistic regression model, malignancy was not found to be an independent risk factor for AF (p = 0.32). While patients with solid tumors had a numerically higher prevalence of AF than those with hematological malignancies (4.3 vs. 4.1%), tumor type was not independently associated with AF (p = 0.13). AF prevalence was higher in patients receiving chemotherapy (4.1%), radiation therapy (5.1%), or both (6.9%) when compared to patients not receiving any therapy (3.6%, p = 0.01). On multivariable logistic regression, radiation therapy remained an independent risk factor for AF for the entire study population (p = 0.03) as well as for the cancer population (p &lt; 0.01).Conclusions: Radiation therapy for cancer is an independent risk factor for AF. The known association between cancer and AF may be mediated, at least in part, by the effects of radiation therapy.

Pressure-guided PVI is an effective method for cryoablation of AF. This method not only significantly reduces the volume of contrast used but also decreases the fluoroscopy without compromising the success of PVI.

No abstract