Literature DB >> 12397228

Clinical predictors of successful cephalic vein access for implantation of endocardial leads.

Bradley P Knight1, Kristen Curlett, Hakan Oral, Frank Pelosi, Fred Morady, S Adam Strickberger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there are any patient characteristics that predict successful use of the cephalic vein for endocardial lead implantation.
METHODS: One-hundred fifty consecutive patients who underwent implantation of one or more endocardial pacemaker (N = 63) or defibrillator (N = 87) leads using a cephalic vein approach were included in this prospective study. The mean age of the patients was 63 +/- 14 years, and 115 (77%) were men. Ninety-one patients (61%) had coronary artery disease, 77 patients (51%) had hypertension, and 42 patients (28%) had diabetes. The mean ejection fraction was 0.34 +/- 0.17.
RESULTS: At least one lead was successfully implanted using a cephalic vein approach in 96 patients (64%). The most common reason for failure of the cephalic vein approach was a small cephalic vein, found in 25 patients (17%). Independent predictors of successful cephalic vein use were diabetes (p < 0.001), ejection fraction < or = 0.40 (p < 0.05), and male gender (p < 0.05). At least one endocardial lead was implanted in 19 of the 24 (79%) men who had an ejection fraction < or = 0.40 and diabetes, compared to 4 of the 11 (36%) women who had an ejection fraction > 0.40 and did not have diabetes. The only independent predictor of successful cephalic vein implantation among nondiabetics was an ejection fraction < or = 0.40 (p < 0.01). Body size was not an independent predictor of successful cephalic vein use.
CONCLUSION: Baseline patient characteristics influence the likelihood of successful endocardial lead implantation using a cephalic vein approach. Diabetes, ventricular dysfunction, male gender and are associated with an increased likelihood of a successful implant using the cephalic vein. Smaller leads and and better techniques are needed to improve the success rate of cephalic vein implantation in all patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12397228     DOI: 10.1023/a:1020893923079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1383-875X            Impact factor:   1.900


  7 in total

1.  Safe and effective placement of two bipolar silicone leads in the cephalic vein using a hydrophilic guidewire and a split introducer.

Authors:  A Da Costa; E Faure; C Romeyer; B Samuel; M Messier; M Lamaud; K Isaaz
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.976

2.  Prospective randomized comparison of the safety and effectiveness of placement of endocardial pacemaker and defibrillator leads using the extrathoracic subclavian vein guided by contrast venography versus the cephalic approach.

Authors:  H Calkins; B M Ramza; J Brinker; W Atiga; K Donahue; E Nsah; E Taylor; H Halperin; J H Lawrence; G Tomaselli; R D Berger
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 1.976

3.  Venous cutdown for pacemaker implantation.

Authors:  S Furman
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  Lead- and device-related complications in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators trial.

Authors:  J Kron; J Herre; E G Renfroe; C Rizo-Patron; M Raitt; B Halperin; M Gold; B Goldner; M Wathen; B Wilkoff; A Olarte; Q Yao
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.749

5.  Insulation lead failure: is it a matter of insulation coating, venous approach, or both?

Authors:  D Antonelli; T Rosenfeld; N A Freedberg; E Palma; J N Gross; S Furman
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.976

6.  A cephalic vein cutdown and venography technique to facilitate pacemaker and defibrillator lead implantation.

Authors:  H F Tse; C P Lau; S K Leung
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 1.976

7.  Lead fracture in cephalic versus subclavian approach with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems.

Authors:  D M Gallik; U M Ben-Zur; J N Gross; S Furman
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 1.976

  7 in total
  6 in total

1.  Pre-procedure duplex ultrasonography to assist cephalic vein isolation in pacemaker and defibrillator implantation.

Authors:  Jan-Yow Chen; Kuan-Cheng Chang; Yu-Chin Lin; Hsiang-Tai Chou; Jui-Sung Hung
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Feasibility and accuracy of pre-procedure imaging of the proximal cephalic vein by duplex ultrasonography in pacemaker and defibrillator implantation.

Authors:  Jan-Yow Chen; Kuan-Cheng Chang; Yu-Chin Lin; Hsiang-Tai Chou; Jui-Sung Hung
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  Optimized Axillary Vein Technique versus Subclavian Vein Technique in Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  Peng Liu; Yi-Feng Zhou; Peng Yang; Yan-Sha Gao; Gui-Ru Zhao; Shi-Yan Ren; Xian-Lun Li
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2016-11-20       Impact factor: 2.628

4.  A novel technique for ligation of the cephalic vein reduces hemorrhaging during a two-in-one insertion of dual cardiac device leads.

Authors:  Takatsugu Kajiyama; Marehiko Ueda; Masayuki Ishimura; Naotaka Hashiguchi; Masahiro Nakano; Yusuke Kondo; Yoshio Kobayashi
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2018-04-13

5.  Scoring System Assessment of Cephalic Vein Access for Device Implantation.

Authors:  Jane Taleski; Lidija Poposka; Filip Janusevski; Bekim Pocesta; Vladimir Boskov; Noel G Boyle
Journal:  J Innov Card Rhythm Manag       Date:  2018-08-15

6.  Triple lead cephalic versus subclavian vein approach in cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation.

Authors:  Julia Vogler; Anne Geisler; Nils Gosau; Samer Hakmi; Stephan Willems; Tienush Rassaf; Reza Wakili; Elif Kaya
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.