Key result
Cephalic access for CRT achieves 100% success and shorter procedure times versus subclavian access.
Why the study?
Does cephalic venous access improve procedural efficiency and safety compared to subclavian access for CRT device implantation?
Cohort (n=103)
No
Does cephalic venous access improve procedural efficiency and safety compared to subclavian access for CRT device implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 88%
p-value: p=< 0.05
Cephalic venous access is a safe and efficient alternative to subclavian access for CRT device implantation, associated with shorter procedure times and lower radiation exposure.
Authors
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cephalic access may offer a pneumothorax-sparing option for CRT; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective trials before practice change.
Ussen et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation (n=103). Cephalic venous access vs. Subclavian vein access was evaluated on Overall implantation success rate (p=< 0.05). Cephalic venous access for CRT implantation achieved a 100% overall success rate compared to 88% for subclavian access (P<0.05), with significantly shorter procedure duration (118 vs 147 minutes).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: