Affiliation:
1. Cardiology Unit Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine University of Messina Messina Italy
2. Cardiology Division Arrhythmology Unit S. Giovanni Calibita Hospital Isola Tiberina Rome Italy
3. Heart Rhythm Management Centre Postgraduate Program in Cardiac Electrophysiology and Pacing Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel‐Vrije Universiteit Brussel European Reference Networks Guard‐Heart Brussels Belgium
4. Saint Camillus International University of Health Sciences Rome Italy
5. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute St. David's Medical Center Austin Texas USA
Abstract
AbstractIntroductionCephalic 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsOverall, 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).ConclusionOur meta‐analysis suggests that AVP may improve procedural success and reduce total procedural time and venous access time compared to CVC.
Subject
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,General Medicine
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献