BACKGROUND: Supraclavicular variations of the cephalic vein (CV) are detected sporadically. A somewhat more common finding is a CV variation with the typical course of the main vessel but with an additional supraclavicular branch, called the jugulocephalic vein (JCV). The aim of the study was to detect supraclavicular CVs or JCVs via intra-operative venography as well as assess their effects on primary and later revision cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures in our patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed venographic images obtained during CIED procedures at our centre between 2011 and 2015. Out of the 324 venographies conducted during first-time CIED implantation, we identified 14 showing either a supraclavicular course of the CV itself or a persistent JCV. Among revision procedure venographies, we identified 1 case of pertinent CV variations. These vessels had been morphometrically altered by previous medical interventions. RESULTS: Based on topography and morphometric parameters, we identified three anatomical variations of supraclavicular vessels: 2 cases of a supraclavicular CV and 12 cases of an infraclavicular CV accompanied by a persistent supraclavicular JCV (with the diameter larger than that of the main CV in 5 cases and smaller in 7 cases). In 2 cases the enlarged diameter of the JCV was probably due to increased collateral venous flow resulting from thrombotic lesions in the subclavian vein. CONCLUSIONS: Supraclavicular CV variations are rare. Nonetheless, they may significantly affect both first-time and later revision CIED procedures. The presence of a supraclavicular vein is an indication for diagnostic venography in the area of the clavipectoral triangle before the CIED procedure.
BACKGROUND:Supraclavicular variations of the cephalic vein (CV) are detected sporadically. A somewhat more common finding is a CV variation with the typical course of the main vessel but with an additional supraclavicular branch, called the jugulocephalic vein (JCV). The aim of the study was to detect supraclavicular CVs or JCVs via intra-operative venography as well as assess their effects on primary and later revision cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures in our patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed venographic images obtained during CIED procedures at our centre between 2011 and 2015. Out of the 324 venographies conducted during first-time CIED implantation, we identified 14 showing either a supraclavicular course of the CV itself or a persistent JCV. Among revision procedure venographies, we identified 1 case of pertinent CV variations. These vessels had been morphometrically altered by previous medical interventions. RESULTS: Based on topography and morphometric parameters, we identified three anatomical variations of supraclavicular vessels: 2 cases of a supraclavicular CV and 12 cases of an infraclavicular CV accompanied by a persistent supraclavicular JCV (with the diameter larger than that of the main CV in 5 cases and smaller in 7 cases). In 2 cases the enlarged diameter of the JCV was probably due to increased collateral venous flow resulting from thrombotic lesions in the subclavian vein. CONCLUSIONS: Supraclavicular CV variations are rare. Nonetheless, they may significantly affect both first-time and later revision CIED procedures. The presence of a supraclavicular vein is an indication for diagnostic venography in the area of the clavipectoral triangle before the CIED procedure.