Literature DB >> 21091741

Safety and feasibility of cephalic venous access for cardiac resynchronization device implantation.

Bassey Ussen1, Paramdeep S Dhillon, Lisa Anderson, Ian Beeton, Mike Hickman, Mark M Gallagher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices are usually implanted using subclavian vein access, which is associated with the risk of pneumothorax. We examined whether cephalic venous access is an effective alternative to subclavian access by the Seldinger technique for CRT delivery.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all CRT procedures performed over a 1-year period at our center with respect to the access methods, primary success rate, safety, and efficiency.
RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed 103 consecutive primary implantation procedures. The procedure was accomplished using cephalic access alone for 54 of 61 (89%) CRT implants attempted by this route. The overall success rate was 100% (61/61) with additional use of subclavian access. CRT implantation via subclavian vein access was successful in 37 of 42 (88%) (P < 0.05 vs cephalic group). The procedure duration was shorter for the cephalic group (118 ± 39 vs 147 ± 36 minutes, P < 0.0005) as were the screening times and radiation exposure (15 ± 9 vs 27 ± 18 minutes and 4.7 ± 5.8 vs 9.3 ± 9.1 Gcm(2) , both P < 0.01). In the cephalic group, procedure duration and radiation exposure diminished significantly with increasing experience of the technique. Complications occurred in two of 61 (3.3%) cases in the cephalic group and three of 42 (7.1%) in the subclavian group (P = NS).
CONCLUSION: CRT devices can be implanted using cephalic access alone in a large majority of cases. This approach is safe and efficient. ©2010, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21091741     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02975.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  4 in total

1.  Implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices using three leads by cephalic vein dissection approach.

Authors:  Alexios Hadjis; Riccardo Proietti; Vidal Essebag
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 5.214

2.  Cardiac resynchronization in the elderly is beneficial, but could we implant our devices in old patients safer?

Authors:  Evgeny N Mikhaylov; Dmitry S Lebedev
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.327

3.  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

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.