Why the study?
To provide an update of available knowledge on venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, focusing on axillary vein puncture.
Does axillary vein access reduce complications compared to other venous access techniques in patients undergoing cardiac device implantation?
Does axillary vein access reduce complications compared to other venous access techniques in patients undergoing cardiac device implantation?
Axillary vein access for cardiac device implantation appears to offer a safer alternative to subclavian puncture and a higher success rate than cephalic cutdown.
Should not yet change CIED access choices; leaves open superiority of axillary techniques pending randomized data.
The current narrative review provides an update of available knowledge on venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, with a focus on axillary vein puncture. Lower procedure-related and lead-related complications have been reported with extrathoracic vein puncture techniques compared with intrathoracic accesses. In particular, extrathoracic lead access through the axillary vein seems to be associated with lower complication incidence than subclavian vein puncture and higher success rate than cephalic vein cutdown. In literature, many techniques have been described for axillary vein access. The use of contrast venography-guided puncture has facilitated the diffusion of the axillary vein approach for device implantation. Venography may be particularly useful in specific demographic and clinical device implantation contexts. Ultrasound-guided or microwire-guided vascular access for lead positioning can be considered a valid alternative to venography, although current applications for axillary vein puncture need further evaluations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sassone et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: