Key result
Steerable hydrophilic guidewires achieve ~95% cephalic vein lead insertion success after standard methods fail.
Why the study?
Does the use of a hydrophilic guidewire improve the success rate of permanent pacing lead insertion through the cephalic vein in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
Observational (n=115)
Does the use of a hydrophilic guidewire improve the success rate of permanent pacing lead insertion through the cephalic vein in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
The use of a hydrophilic guidewire significantly improves the procedural success rate of permanent pacing lead insertion via the cephalic vein when standard methods fail.
May increase cephalic vein access success after failed standard attempts; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
The cephalic vein (CV) should be preferred to the subclavian vein for the insertion of permanent pacing leads because of better results. Unfortunately, the direct lead introduction using the standard CV cutdown is often unsuccessful. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a steerable hydrophilic guidewire (HGW) for lead insertion through the CV. An HGW was successfully introduced through the cephalic vein and into the subclavian vein. Over a 6-month period, 115 consecutive patients underwent pacemaker implantation. In nine (7.8%) patients, the cephalic vein did not allow lead or guidewire introduction. The direct introduction of the leads through the CV was successful in 55 (51.9%) of 106 patients. In 14 (12.2%) additional patients, a lead was inserted through the CV using a standard guidewire. The use of an HGW and of a split introducer allowed successful insertion of at least one lead in 35 (30.4%) additional patients. Overall, the HGW was successful in 35 (94.6%) of 37 of patients in which the technique was attempted. The CV approach was successful in 104 (90.4%) of 115 patients. In conclusion, the use of an HGW allows the insertion of a pacing lead through the CV in the great majority of patients in whom direct introduction and the use of a standard guidewire had failed. The technique significantly improves the success rate of the CV approach and may help to improve the acute and long-term results of permanent cardiac pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neri et al. (2003) conducted an observational in Pacemaker implantation (n=115). Steerable hydrophilic guidewire (HGW) vs. Direct introduction and standard guidewire was evaluated on Successful lead insertion through the cephalic vein. A steerable hydrophilic guidewire allowed successful pacing lead insertion through the cephalic vein in 94.6% (35 of 37) of patients in whom direct introduction and standard guidewires had failed.