Why the study?
CRT device implantation is associated with severe complications including pneumo- and hemothorax, but data on a sole cephalic vein approach potentially preventing these complications are limited.
Does a sole cephalic vein approach improve safety and feasibility compared to a subclavian vein approach in patients undergoing de-novo CRT implantation?
Comparison
Sole cephalic vein approach vs subclavian vein approach
Design
Prospective cohort study with an age-matched reference group
Follow-up
4 weeks
Authors
Loading...
Sole cephalic access for CRT appears feasible with similar complications; leaves open whether it reduces pneumothorax versus subclavian puncture.
Does a sole cephalic vein approach improve safety and feasibility compared to a subclavian vein approach in patients undergoing de-novo CRT implantation?
A sole cephalic vein approach for triple-lead CRT implantation is feasible and avoids pneumothorax, but is associated with higher radiation exposure compared to the subclavian approach.
Vogler et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: