Fuad Hasan1,2, Sotirios Nedios3, Zana Karosiene4, Marvin Scholten4,5, Bernd Lemke4, Sabrina Tulka6, Stephanie Knippschild6, Susanne Macher-Heidrich7, Heinz Jürgen Adomeit8, Markus Zarse4,5, Harilaos Bogossian5,9. 1. Department of Cardiology, Elektrophysiology, and Angiology, Klinikum Lüdenscheid, Paulmannshöherstr. 14, 58515, Lüdenscheid, Germany. fuazi@yahoo.de. 2. University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany. fuazi@yahoo.de. 3. Department of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 4. Department of Cardiology, Elektrophysiology, and Angiology, Klinikum Lüdenscheid, Paulmannshöherstr. 14, 58515, Lüdenscheid, Germany. 5. University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany. 6. Faculty of Health, Institute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany. 7. Medical Chamber North Rhine, Düsseldorf, Germany. 8. Medical Chamber Westphalia, Münster, Germany. 9. Department of Cardiology and Rhythmology, Ev. Krankenhaus Hagen, Hagen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and the subclavian puncture (SP) is the most common access for pacemaker implantation. The purpose of this study was to compare the peri-/postoperative complications of these approaches. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the quality assurance data of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia was performed to evaluate the peri-/postoperative complications of first pacemaker implantation according to the venous access. The primary endpoint was defined as the occurrence of one of the following: asystole, ventricular fibrillation, pneumothorax, hemothorax, pericardial effusion, pocket hematoma, lead dislocation, lead dysfunction, postoperative wound infection or other complication requiring intervention. Descriptive analysis was done via absolute, relative frequencies and Odds Ratio. Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of the both study groups. RESULTS: From 139,176 pacemaker implantations from 2010 to 2014, 15,483 cases were excluded due to other/double access. The median age was 78 years and the access used was CVC for 75,251 cases (60.8%) and SP for 48,442 cases (39.2%). The implanted devices were mainly dual-chamber pacemakers (73.9% in the CVC group and 78.4% in the SP group), followed by single-chamber pacemakers VVI (24.9% and 19.9% in the CVC and SP group respectively). There were significantly fewer peri/postoperative complications in the CVC group compared to the SP group (2.49% vs. 3.64%, p = 0.0001, OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.38-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: CVC as venous access for pacemaker implantation has significantly fewer peri/postoperative complications than SP and appears to be an advantageous technique.
PURPOSE: The cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and the subclavian puncture (SP) is the most common access for pacemaker implantation. The purpose of this study was to compare the peri-/postoperative complications of these approaches. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the quality assurance data of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia was performed to evaluate the peri-/postoperative complications of first pacemaker implantation according to the venous access. The primary endpoint was defined as the occurrence of one of the following: asystole, ventricular fibrillation, pneumothorax, hemothorax, pericardial effusion, pocket hematoma, lead dislocation, lead dysfunction, postoperative wound infection or other complication requiring intervention. Descriptive analysis was done via absolute, relative frequencies and Odds Ratio. Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of the both study groups. RESULTS: From 139,176 pacemaker implantations from 2010 to 2014, 15,483 cases were excluded due to other/double access. The median age was 78 years and the access used was CVC for 75,251 cases (60.8%) and SP for 48,442 cases (39.2%). The implanted devices were mainly dual-chamber pacemakers (73.9% in the CVC group and 78.4% in the SP group), followed by single-chamber pacemakers VVI (24.9% and 19.9% in the CVC and SP group respectively). There were significantly fewer peri/postoperative complications in the CVC group compared to the SP group (2.49% vs. 3.64%, p = 0.0001, OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.38-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: CVC as venous access for pacemaker implantation has significantly fewer peri/postoperative complications than SP and appears to be an advantageous technique.