1074 Axillary Vein Puncture Versus Cephalic Vein Cutdown for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Metanalysis

Abstract

Introduction Transvenous lead implantation for pacemaker implantation is commonly performed by the cephalic vein cutdown (CVC), subclavian (SVP), or axillary vein puncture (AVP)(1). However, the CVC or AVP should be considered as first choice, according to the last guidelines, due to high rate of lead complications and pneumothorax of SVP. Objective To compare efficacy and safety of AVP compared with CVC for CIED implantation by a meta-analysis. Methods We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases up to September 5th, 2022, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of AVP and CVC reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary outcome was acute procedural success. The secondary outcomes were pneumothorax, lead failure, pocket hematoma/bleeding, device infection, total procedure time, venous access time and fluoroscopy time. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Risk Ratio (RR) and relative 95% Confidence Interval (CI). Results A total of 8 studies were included enrolling 1926 patients with 3532 leads and average age of 72.3±14.8 years. AVP compared to CVC showed a significant increase in the procedural success (95.7% vs 76.1%; RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.09-1.40; p=0.001), (Figure 1). Total procedural time (Mean Difference [MD]: -8.25 min; 95%CI: -10.23- -6.27; p<0.0001) and Venous access time (MD: -6.24 min; 95%CI: -7.01- -5.47; p<0.0001) were significantly shorter with AVP compared with CVC. No differences were found between AVP and CVC for pneumothorax (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.13 - 4.0; p=0.71), lead failure (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.23-1.48; p=0.26), pocket hematoma/bleeding (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.15- 2.23; p=0.43), device infection (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.14- 6.60; p=0.96) and fluoroscopy time (MD: -0.24 min; 95%CI: -0.75- 0.28; p=0.36). Conclusion Our meta-analysis proved that AVP improves procedural success and reduces total procedural time and venous access time compared to CVC. Figure 1 – Forest plots comparing Acute Procedural Success between Axillary Vein Puncture Versus Cephalic Vein Cutdown.

Caudal fluoroscopic guidance for the insertion of transvenous pacing leads

“…Puncture of the extrathoracic subclavian vein (subclavian vein puncture [SVP]) has emerged as the dominant technique for venous access in contemporary practice. Compared with cephalic vein cutdown, SVP has been demonstrated to result in shorter procedural duration 4 and higher rates of successful venous access 5 . However, the primary disadvantage of SVP is increased risk of pneumothorax.…”

“…access in contemporary practice. Compared with cephalic vein cutdown, SVP has been demonstrated to result in shorter procedural duration 4 and higher rates of successful venous access. 5 However, the primary disadvantage of SVP is increased risk of pneumothorax.…”