Intra-pocket ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture vs. cephalic vein cutdown for cardiac electronic device implantation: the ACCESS trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Intra-pocket ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture (IPUS-AVP) for venous access in implantation of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is uncommon due to the lack of clinical evidence supporting this technique. This study investigated the efficacy and early complications of IPUS-AVP compared to the standard method using cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation. METHODS: ACCESS was an investigator-led, interventional, randomized (1:1 ratio), monocentric, controlled superiority trial. A total of 200 patients undergoing CIED implantation were randomized to IPUS-AVP (n = 101) or CVC (n = 99) as a first assigned route. The primary endpoint was the success rate of insertion of all leads using the first assigned venous access technique. The secondary endpoints were time to venous access, total procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, X-ray exposure, and complications. Complications were monitored during a follow-up period of three months after procedure. RESULTS: IPUS-AVP was significantly superior to CVC for the primary endpoint with 100 (99.0%) vs. 86 (86.9%) procedural successes (P = .001). Cephalic vein cutdown followed by subclavian vein puncture was successful in a total of 95 (96.0%) patients, P = .21 vs. IPUS-AVP. All secondary endpoints were also significantly improved in the IPUS-AVP group with reduction in time to venous access [3.4 vs. 10.6 min, geometric mean ratio (GMR) 0.32 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.28-0.36), P < .001], total procedure duration [33.8 vs. 46.9 min, GMR 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.78), P < .001], fluoroscopy time [2.4 vs. 3.3 min, GMR 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.86), P < .001], and X-ray exposure [1083 vs. 1423 mGy.cm², GMR 0.76 (95% CI 0.62-0.93), P = .009]. There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups (P = .68). CONCLUSIONS: IPUS-AVP is superior to CVC in terms of success rate, time to venous access, procedure duration, and radiation exposure. Complication rates were similar between the two groups. Intra-pocket ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture should be a recommended venous access technique for CIED implantation.

Carbon footprint of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation.

AIMS: Climate change represents the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. Health care system is itself a large contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In cardiology, atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is an increasing activity using numerous non-reusable materials that could contribute to GHG emission. Determining a detailed carbon footprint analysis of an AF catheter ablation procedure allows the identification of the main polluting sources that give opportunities for reduction of environmental impact. To assess the carbon footprint of AF catheter ablation procedure. To determine priority actions to decrease pollution. METHODS AND RESULTS: An eco-audit method used to predict the GHG emission of an AF catheter ablation procedure was investigated. Two workstations were considered including surgery and anaesthesia. In the operating room, every waste produced by single-use medical devices, pharmaceutical drugs, and energy consumption during intervention were evaluated. All analyses were limited to the operating room. Thirty procedures were analysed over a period of 8 weeks: 18 pulmonary veins isolation RF ablations, 7 complex RF procedures including PVI, roof and mitral isthmus lines, ethanol infusion of the Marshall vein and cavo tricuspid isthmus line, and 5 pulmonary vein isolation with cryoballoon. The mean emission during AF catheter ablation procedures was 76.9 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). The operating field accounted for 75.4% of the carbon footprint, while only 24.6% for the anaesthesia workstation. On one hand, material production and manufacturing were the most polluting phases of product life cycle which, respectively, represented 71.3% (54.8 kg of CO2-e) and 17.0% (13.1 kg of CO2-e) of total pollution. On the other hand, transport contributed in 10.6% (8.1 kg of CO2-e), while product use resulted in 1.1% (0.9 kg of CO2-e) of GHG production. Electrophysiology catheters were demonstrated to be the main contributors of environmental impact with 29.9 kg of CO2-e (i.e. 38.8%). Three dimensional mapping system and electrocardiogram patches were accounting for 6.8 kg of CO2-e (i.e. 8.8% of total). CONCLUSION: AF catheter ablation involves a mean of 76.9 kg of CO2-e. With an estimated 600 000 annual worldwide procedures, the environmental impact of AF catheter ablation activity is estimated equal to 125 tons of CO2 emission each day. It represents an equivalent of 700 000 km of car ride every day. Electrophysiology catheters and patches are the main contributors of the carbon footprint. The focus must be on reducing, reusing, and recycling these items to limit the impact of AF ablation on the environment. A road map of steps to implement in different time frames is proposed.