Key result
A modified procedure using a hydrophilic guidewire and split introducer allowed successful cephalic dual insertion of bipolar leads in 89% of patients with an accessible cephalic vein.
Why the study?
Does a modified procedure using a hydrophilic guidewire and split introducer improve the success rate of dual bipolar lead placement in the cephalic vein in patients receiving DDD pacemakers?
Observational (n=90)
Does a modified procedure using a hydrophilic guidewire and split introducer improve the success rate of dual bipolar lead placement in the cephalic vein in patients receiving DDD pacemakers?
A modified procedure using a hydrophilic guidewire and split introducer achieves a high success rate (89%) for dual bipolar lead placement in the cephalic vein, potentially reducing reliance on subclavian access.
Supports cephalic dual-lead feasibility in DDD pacemakers; hypothesis-generating for reducing subclavian complications, pending randomized data.
The cephalic vein (CV) is preferable to the subclavian vein for implanting permanent pacing leads because of fewer complications. Unfortunately, this access is unusable in a substantial number of patients. This prospective study evaluates a technique to increase CV access for the placement of two silicone bipolar leads used in DDD pulse generator implants. A standard cephalic cutdown was performed under local anesthesia and a hydrophilic guidewire (HGW) threaded in the CV. The first (ventricular) bipolar lead was then introduced and positioned. When possible, introduction of the second (atrial) lead followed the same direct access. A failed introduction led to a modified procedure (MP) relying on a "split" introducer (8-9 Fr Plastimed) advanced with a circular motion over the HGW, then removal of the dilator, removal of the HGW, insertion of the pacing lead into the sheath with placement in the right atrium, followed by sheath withdrawal. Over an 18-month period, 90 consecutive patients had DDD pacemakers implanted. The CV was accessible in 76 (84.5%) of 90 patients and the direct introduction of the ventricular lead was obtained in 74 (97.4%) of these. Atrialization proceeded as follows: direct access CV in 14 (18%) of 76 patients, MP access in 54 (71%) of 76 patients, and MP failure in 8 (11%) of 76 patients. Overall, this approach allowed cephalic dual insertion in 68 (89%) of 76 patients. In conclusion, the modified procedure presented in this study allows a dual catheterization with bipolar leads in 89% of patients when a CV is available. This significantly improves the success rate for dual bipolar lead implants in this configuration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costa et al. (2000) conducted an observational in DDD pacemaker implantation (n=90). Modified procedure using a hydrophilic guidewire and a split introducer was evaluated on Successful cephalic dual insertion of bipolar leads. A modified procedure using a hydrophilic guidewire and split introducer allowed successful cephalic dual insertion of bipolar leads in 89% of patients with an accessible cephalic vein.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: