Why the study?
Preoperative ultrasound for cephalic cut-down relates to shorter procedure time and higher success rate, but the efficiency of US-guided percutaneous cephalic vein puncture for CIED placement needed assessment.
Is ultrasound-guided percutaneous cephalic venipuncture feasible and safe for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Is ultrasound-guided percutaneous cephalic venipuncture feasible and safe for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Ultrasound-guided percutaneous cephalic vein puncture is a feasible and safe alternative for CIED implantation, particularly when axillary or subclavian approaches fail.
US-guided CV puncture may be feasible for CIEDs; leaves open comparative efficacy versus cut-down in prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: Preoperative ultrasound (US) for cephalic cut-down is related to shorter procedure time and higher success rate. This study aimed to assess efficiency of US-guided percutaneous cephalic vein (CV) puncture for placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: Patients undergoing a procedure including both US-guided pectoral nerve block (PECS) and percutaneous CV puncture were retrospectively investigated. Patient medical history and demographic data was collected. Clinical features of the procedures and intra- and post-operative complications occurring were collected from patient records. Clinical data included target vessel features, and the time taken for the following: CV puncture; CV and PECS puncture; total procedure. RESULTS: In total 34 patients had CV puncture with US-guided PECS block was attempted in all patients and the procedure was successful in 27 of 34 (79.4%) patients. The total number of CV puncture attempts was 62 for 34 leads (mean attempts per lead = 1.82). The mean ± standard deviation time for CV puncture was 137.5 ± 27.4 s. There were no venous access-related complications. CONCLUSION: US-guided CV puncture appears feasible and safe with an acceptable success rate. In case of failure of the US-guided axillary or subclavian vein approach, it may be preferred as an alternative to the cephalic cut-down procedure, where the success rate is relatively lower and the risk of bleeding is higher.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yalnız et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: