Key result
Right ventricular lead fracture occurred in 1.34% of leads placed via the subclavian vein compared to 0% via the cephalic vein, approaching statistical significance (P=0.08).
Why the study?
Does the cephalic vein approach reduce the incidence of lead fracture compared to the subclavian approach in patients undergoing transvenous ICD implantation?
Population
757 patients undergoing implantation of transvenous cardioverter defibrillator systems using the Medtronic…
Comparison
Subclavian vein approach for right ventricular… vs Cephalic vein approach for right ventricular…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May favor cephalic over subclavian access for ICD leads; leaves open optimal approach pending randomized data.
Cohort (n=757)
Does the cephalic vein approach reduce the incidence of lead fracture compared to the subclavian approach in patients undergoing transvenous ICD implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.34% vs 0%
p-value: p=0.08
The trend toward increased lead fracture incidence with the subclavian vein approach suggests that the cephalic vein approach may be preferable for transvenous ICD lead implantation to avoid this complication.
Gallik et al. (1996) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing implantation of transvenous cardioverter defibrillator systems (n=757). Subclavian vein approach vs. Cephalic vein approach was evaluated on Right ventricular lead fracture (p=0.08). Right ventricular lead fracture occurred in 1.34% of leads placed via the subclavian vein compared to 0% via the cephalic vein, approaching statistical significance (P=0.08).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: