Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
5 years IF: 1.036 (® Thomson Reuters)
IF 2016: 1.064 (® Thomson Reuters)
Total Cites: 7140
Follow Us
Follow Us
  • Users Online: 1164
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 129  |  Issue : 22  |  Page : 2647-2651

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


Department of Cardiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029, China

Correspondence Address:
Xian-Lun Li
Department of Cardiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.193462

Clinical trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02358551

Rights and Permissions

Background: The conventional venous access for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) is the subclavian vein, which is often accompanied by high complication rate. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of optimized axillary vein technique. Methods: A total of 247 patients undergoing CIED implantation were included and assigned to the axillary vein group or the subclavian vein group randomly. Success rate of puncture and complications in the perioperative period and follow-ups were recorded. Results: The overall success rate (95.7% vs. 96.0%) and one-time success rate (68.4% vs. 66.1%) of punctures were similar between the two groups. In the subclavian vein group, pneumothorax occurred in three patients. The subclavian gaps of three patients were too tight to allow operation of the electrode lead. In contrast, there were no puncture-associated complications in the axillary vein group. In the patient follow-ups, two patients in the subclavian vein group had subclavian crush syndrome and both of them received lead replacement. The incidence of complications during the perioperative period and follow-ups of the axillary vein group and the subclavian vein group was 1.6% (2/125) and 8.2% (10/122), respectively (χ2 = 5.813, P = 0.016). Conclusion: Optimized axillary vein technique may be superior to the conventional subclavian vein technique for CIED lead placement. Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02358551; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02358551?term=NCT02358551& rank=1.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4379    
    Printed19    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded1180    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

京ICP备05052599号