Key result
Unfavorable cephalic vein anatomy prevents direct lead passage in 27% of cardiac device implants.
Why the study?
Morphometric parameters of the cephalic vein affect the success of cardiac implantable electronic device insertion, but their variations and clinical implications are not well characterized.
What are the morpho-anatomical variations of the cephalic vein that limit the use of the CV cutdown technique during CIED insertion?
Observational (n=214)
No
What are the morpho-anatomical variations of the cephalic vein that limit the use of the CV cutdown technique during CIED insertion?
Atypical cephalic vein variations, such as small diameter or sharp curvature, are common causes of problematic lead introduction during CIED implantation.
Highlights potential CV cutdown limitations in CIED insertion; leaves open prospective evaluation of alternative access strategies.
BACKGROUND: Morphometric parameters of the venous vasculature constitute an important aspect in successful cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) insertion. The purpose of this study was to present morpho-anatomical variations of the cephalic vein (CV) and their effect on the course of CIED implantation procedures, based on the patients from our centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed contrast venography results obtained during first-time lead placement. Venography was indicated in the cases of problematic lead introduction with either the CV cutdown or axillary/subclavian vein puncture techniques. The 214 cases of venography (15%) performed out of 1425 first-time lead placement in the period 2011-2013 were divided into 9 subgroups according to the most commonly observed CV variations of similar morpho-anatomical features that limited the use of the CV cutdown technique for lead insertion. RESULTS: The following CV morphometric parameters were found to be unfavo-urable in terms of lead placement: CV diameter of ≤ 1 mm (18%), sharp curva-ture of the terminal CV segment as it joined the axillary vein (14%), terminal CV bifurcation (9%), additional CV branches (7%) or tributaries (7%), stenoses (5%), sharply winding course (5%), single CV with a supraclavicular course (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The radiographic records obtained during the procedures allowed us to assess the prevalence of those atypical CV variations in our study group, with graphic presentation of characteristic types and sporadically reported CV variations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Steckiewicz et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing first-time cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) insertion (n=214). Cephalic vein morpho-anatomical variations vs. Normal cephalic vein anatomy was evaluated on Prevalence of unfavorable cephalic vein morphometric parameters preventing direct lead passage. Unfavorable cephalic vein morphometric parameters, such as a diameter ≤1 mm or sharp curvature, prevented direct lead passage in 27% of patients undergoing cardiac device insertion.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: