Cephalic Vein Cutdown Is Superior to Subclavian Puncture as Venous Access for Patients with Cardiac Implantable Devices after Long-Term Follow-Up

Author:

Knorr Dario1ORCID,Bandorski Dirk2ORCID,Bogossian Harilaos13,Iliodromitis Konstantinos13,Schiedat Fabian45ORCID,Karosiene Zana6,Mijic Dejan6,Lemke Bernd6,Seyfarth Melchior17,Voß Sabrina8,Knippschild Stephanie8ORCID,Aweimer Assem4ORCID,Zarse Markus16,Kloppe Axel45,Botsios Spiridon1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Cardiology, University Witten/Herdecke, 58455 Witten, Germany

2. Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary

3. Cardiology and Rhythmology, Ev. Krankenhaus Hagen, 58135 Hagen, Germany

4. Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Bergmannsheil University Hospitals, Ruhr University of Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany

5. Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Marienhospital Gelsenkirchen, 45886 Gelsenkirchen, Germany

6. Department of Cardiology, Elektrophysiology and Angiology, Klinikum Lüdenscheid, 58515 Luedenscheid, Germany

7. Department of Cardiology, Helios Klinikum Wuppertal, 42283 Wuppertal, Germany

8. Faculty of Health, Institute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Witten/Herdecke University, 58455 Witten, Germany

Abstract

Background: Cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and subclavian vein puncture (SVP) are the most commonly used access sites for transvenous lead placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Limited knowledge exists about the long-term patency of the vascular lumen housing the leads. Methods: Among the 2703 patients who underwent CIED procedures between 2005 and 2013, we evaluated the phlebographies of 162 patients scheduled for an elective CIED replacement (median of 6.4 years after the first operation). The phlebographies were divided into four stenosis types: Type I = 0%, Type II = 1–69%, Type III = 70–99%, and Type IV = occlusion. Due to the fact that no standardized stenosis categorization exists, experienced physicians in consensus with the involved team made the applied distribution. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of stenosis Type III or IV in the CVC group and in the SVP group. Results: In total, 162 patients with venography were enrolled in this study. The prevalence of high-degree stenosis was significantly lower in the CVC group (7/89, 7.8%) than in the SVP group (15/73, 20.5%, p = 0.023). In the CVC group, venographies showed a lower median stenosis (33%) than in the SVP group (median 42%). Conclusions: The present study showed that the long-term patency of the subclavian vein is higher after CVC than after SVP for venous access in patients with CIED.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Reference32 articles.

1. The cephalic vein cutdown versus subclavian puncture for pacemaker/ICD lead implantation;Parsonnet;Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. PACE,1999

2. Anatomical mechanisms explaining damage to pacemaker leads, defibrillator leads, and failure of central venous catheters adjacent to the sternoclavicular joint;Magney;Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. PACE,1993

3. Venous access and long-term pacemaker lead failure: Comparing contrast-guided axillary vein puncture with subclavian puncture and cephalic cutdown;Chan;Eur. Eur. Pacing Arrhythm. Card. Electrophysiol. J. Work. Groups Card. Pacing Arrhythm. Card. Cell. Electrophysiol. Eur. Soc. Cardiol.,2017

4. [Annual Report 2017 of the German Pacemaker and Defibrillator-Register. Part 1: Cardiac Pacemaker: Working Group on Pacemaker and Defibrillators at the IQTIG-Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Healthcare];Markewitz;Herzschrittmachertherapie Elektrophysiologie,2019

5. [Annual report 2017 of the German pacemaker- and defibrillator register—Part 2: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD): Working group on Cardiac pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators at the IQTIG—Institute of Quality Assurance and Transparency in Healthcare];Markewitz;Herzschrittmachertherapie Elektrophysiologie,2019

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3