Different venous approaches for implantation of cardiac electronic devices. A network meta‐analysis. Issue 6 (18th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis; Kossyvakis, Charalampos; Kousta, Maria; Verikokkou, Christina; Lakka, Eleni; Karakanas, Asterios; Deftereos, Gerasimos; Spanou, Polixeni; Giotaki, Sotiria; Vrachatis, Dimitrios; Avramidis, Dimitrios; Deftereos, Spyridon; Giannopoulos, Georgios
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 45:Issue 6(2022)
• Page Start: 717
• Page End: 725
• Publication Date: 2022-05-18
• Subjects: axillary -- cardiac devices -- cephalic -- complications -- implantation -- lead failure -- pneumothorax -- subclavian; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14510
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Many of the complications arising from cardiac device implantation are associated to the venous access used for lead placement. Previous analyses reported that cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) is safer but less effective than subclavian vein puncture (SVP). However, comparisons between these techniques and axillary vein puncture (AVP) – guided either by ultrasound or fluoroscopy – are lacking. Thus, we aimed to compare safety and efficacy of these approaches. Methods: We searched for articles assessing at least two different approaches regarding the incidence of pneumothorax and/or lead failure (LF). When available, bleeding and infectious complications as well as procedural success were analyzed. A frequentist random effects network meta‐analysis model was adopted. Results: Thirty‐six studies were analyzed. Most articles assessed SVP versus CVC. Compared to SVP, both CVC and AVP were associated with reduced odds of pneumothorax (OR: 0.193, 95%CI: 0.136–0.275 and OR: 0.128, 95%CI: 0.050–0.329; respectively) and LF (OR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.406–0.976 and OR: 0.425, 95%CI: 0.286–0.632; respectively). No significant differences between AVP and CVC were demonstrated. Limited data suggests no major impact of different approaches on infectious and bleeding complications. Initial CVC approach required significantly more often an alternate/additional venous access for lead placement, compared to both AVP and SVP. No differences between these two were identified. Conclusion: Both AVP and CVC seem to decrease incident pneumothorax and LF, compared to SVP. Initial AVP approach seems to decrease the need of alternate venous access, compared to CVC. These results suggest that AVP should be further clinically tested.