Key result
Alternative vascular access enables successful PPM implantation in bilateral subclavian vein stenosis.
Why the study?
Alternative venous access or interventional treatment may be needed when conventional permanent pacemaker lead implantation via axillary, subclavian, or cephalic vein is not feasible due to bilateral subclavian vein stenosis.
Case Report (n=2)
No
Alternative vascular access via the internal jugular vein or percutaneous balloon angioplasty of the subclavian vein are feasible and safe methods for permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with bilateral subclavian vein stenosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Alternative venous access or intervention may be required for PPM; hypothesis-generating for prevalence and non-catheter etiologies.
Bilateral subclavian vein (SCV) stenosis is a common finding in patients requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM). The prevalence of bilateral SCV stenosis without catheter intervention is unknown. Alternative venous ways or interventional treatment may be necessary when the conventional method of PPM lead implantation via axillary, subclavian, or cephalic vein is not feasible. Hereby, we presented a 51-year-old female patient and an 81-year-old male patient with primary complaints of dizziness and weakness and were diagnosed with severe bilateral SCV stenosis. One of whom had chronic kidney disease. Different methods for PPM implantation were described in two cases of bilateral SCV stenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duygu et al. (2023) conducted a case report in Bilateral subclavian vein stenosis requiring permanent pacemaker (n=2). Alternative vascular access approaches (right internal jugular vein access and percutaneous balloon angioplasty) was evaluated on Successful permanent pacemaker implantation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: