UltraSound Axillary Vein Access (USAA): Learning curve and randomized comparison to traditional venous access for cardiac device implantation. Issue 12 (9th November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Courtney, Alex M.; Chandler, Jonathan K.; Anderson, John; Shrestha, Amit; Noheria, Amit; Pimentel, Rhea; Dendi, Raghuveer; Ramirez, Rigoberto; Reddy, Y. Madhu; Sheldon, Seth H.
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 45:Issue 12(2022)
• Page Start: 1364
• Page End: 1371
• Publication Date: 2022-11-09
• Subjects: axillary vein -- cardiac implantable electronic device -- implantable cardioverter defibrillator -- pacemaker -- techniques -- ultrasound access; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14611
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Many techniques exist for venous access (VA) during cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Objective: We sought to evaluate the learning curve with ultrasound (US) guided axillary vein access (USAA). Methods: Single‐center prospective randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing CIED implantation. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to USAA versus conventional VA techniques. The primary outcomes were the success rates, VA times and 30‐day complication rates. Results: The study included 100 patients (age 68 ± 14 years, BMI 27 ± 4 kg/m 2 ). USAA was successful in 66/70 implants (94%). Initial attempts at conventional VA included 47% axillary ( n = 14), 30% ( n = 9) cephalic, and 23% ( n = 7) subclavian. The median access time was longer for USAA than conventional access (8.3 IQR 4.2–15.3 min vs. 5.2 IQR 3.4–8.6 min, p = .009). Among the five inexperienced USAA implanters, there was a significant improvement in median access time from first to last tertile of USAA implants (17.0 IQR 7.0–21.0 min to 8.6 IQR 4.5–10.8 min, p = .038). The experienced USAA implanter had similar access times with USAA compared with conventional access (4.0 IQR 3.3–4.7 min vs. 5.2 IQR 3.4–8.6 min, p = .15). Venograms were less common with USAA than conventional access (2% vs. 33%, p < .0001). The 30‐day complication rate was similar with USAA ( n = 4/70, 6%) versus conventional ( n = 3/30, 10%, p = .44). Conclusion: Although the success rate with USAA was high, there was a significant learning curve. Once experienced with the USAA technique, there is the potential for reduced complications without adding to the procedure duration.