Surgical outcomes for occluded venous thoracic outlet syndrome following transaxillary first rib resection.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical decompression via transaxillary first rib resection (TFRR) is often performed in patients presenting with venous thoracic outlet syndrome (VTOS). We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of TFRR based on chronicity of completely occluded axillosubclavian veins in VTOS. METHODS: We performed a retrospective institutional review of all patients who underwent TFRR for VTOS and had a completely occluded axillosubclavian vein between 2003 and 2022. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the time of inciting VTOS event to TFRR acuity of their venous occlusion: <4 weeks, 4 to 12 weeks, and >12 weeks. We evaluated the association of TFRR timing with 1-year outcomes, including patency and symptomatic improvement. We used the χ2 test to compare baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 103 patients underwent TFRR for VTOS with a completely occluded axillosubclavian vein (median age, 30.0 years; 42.7% female; 8.8% non-White), of whom 28 had occlusion at <4 weeks, 36 had occlusion at 4 to 12 weeks, and 39 had occlusion at >12 weeks. Postoperative venogram performed 2 to 3 weeks after TFRR demonstrated that 78.6% in the <4 weeks group, 72.2% in the 4- to 12-weeks group, and 61.5% in the >12 weeks group had some degree of recanalization (P = .76). Postoperative balloon angioplasty was successfully performed in 60 patients with stenosed or occluded axillosubclavian vein at the time of postoperative venogram. At the 10- to 14-month follow-up, 79.2% of the <4 weeks group, 73.3% of the 4- to 12-weeks group, and 73.3% of the >12 weeks group had patent axillosubclavian veins based on duplex ultrasound examination (P = .86). Among patients who underwent postoperative balloon angioplasty, 80.0%, 85.0% and 100% in the <4 weeks, 4- to 12-weeks, and >12 weeks groups respectively demonstrated patency at 10 to 14 months (P = .31). Symptomatic improvement was reported in 95.7% in the <4 weeks group, 96.7% in the 4- to 12-weeks group, and 93.5% in the >12 weeks group (P = .84). CONCLUSIONS: TFRR offers excellent postoperative outcomes for patients with symptomatic VTOS, even in cases of completely occluded axillosubclavian veins, regardless of the chronicity of the occlusion. By 14 months, 95.2% of patients experienced symptomatic improvement, and 75% attained venous patency.

Analysis of completion intraoperative venography during first rib resection for venous thoracic outlet syndrome.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the impact of completion intraoperative venography on clinical outcomes for axillosubclavian vein (AxSCV) thrombosis owing to venous thoracic outlet syndrome (vTOS). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center review of all patients with vTOS treated with first rib resection (FRR) and intraoperative venography from 2011 to 2023. We reviewed intraoperative venographic films to classify findings and collected demographics, clinical and perioperative variables, and clinical outcomes. Primary end points were symptomatic relief and primary patency at 3 months and 1 year. Secondary end points were time free from symptoms, reintervention rate, perioperative complications, and mortality. RESULTS: Fifty-one AxSCVs (49 patients; mean age, 31.3 ± 12.6 years; 52.9% female) were treated for vTOS with FRR and external venolysis followed by completion intraoperative venography with a mean follow up of 15.5 ± 13.5 months. Before FRR, 32 underwent catheter-directed thrombolysis (62.7%). Completion intraoperative venography identified 16 patients with no stenosis (group 1, 31.3%), 17 with no stenosis after angioplasty (group 2, 33.3%), 10 with residual stenosis after angioplasty (group 3, 19.7%), and 8 with complete occlusion (group 4, 15.7%). The overall symptomatic relief was 44 of 51 (86.3%) and did not differ between venographic classifications (group 1, 14 of 16; group 2, 13 of 17; group 3, 10 of 10; and group 4, 7 of 8; log-rank test, P = .5). The overall 3-month and 1-year primary patency was 42 of 43 (97.7%) and 32 of 33 (97.0%), respectively (group 1, 16 of 16 and 9 of 9; group 2, 16 of 17 and 12 of 13; group 3, 10 of 10, 5 of 5; group 4, primary patency not obtained). There was one asymptomatic rethrombosis that resolved with anticoagulation, and three patients underwent reintervention with venous angioplasty for significant symptom recurrence an average 2.89 ± 1.7 months after FRR. CONCLUSIONS: Our single-center retrospective study demonstrates that FRR with completion intraoperative venography has excellent symptomatic relief and short- and mid-term patency despite residual venous stenosis and complete occlusion. Although completion intraoperative venographic classification did not correlate with adverse outcomes, this protocol yielded excellent results and provides important clinical data for postoperative management. Our results also support a conservative approach to AxSCV occlusion identified after FRR.

The axillary vein puncture for implantable cardiac defibrillator implantation: 14 years of experience. Analysis of the results.

BACKGROUND: Axillary vein puncture (AVP) is a valid alternative to Subclavan vein puncture for leads insertion in cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, that may reduce acute and delayed complications. Very few data are available about ICD recipients. A simplified AVP technique is described. METHODS: All the patients who consecutively underwent "de novo" ICD implantation, from March 2006 to December 2020 at the University of Verona, were considered. Leads insertion was routinely performed through an AVP, according to a simplified technique. Outcome and complications have been retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 1711 consecutive patients. Out of 1711 patients, 38 (2.2%) were excluded because they were implanted with Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead. Out of 1673 ICD implantations, 963 (57.6%) were ICD plus cardiac resynchronization therapy, 434 (25.9%) were dual-chamber defibrillators, and 276 (16.5%) were single-chamber defibrillators, for a total of 3879 implanted leads. The AVP success rate was 99.4%. Acute complications occurred in 7/1673 (0.42%) patients. Lead failure (LF) occurred in 20/1673 (1.19%) patients. Comparing the group of patients with lead failure with the group without LF, the presence of three leads inside the vein was significantly associated with LF, and the multivariate analysis confirmed three leads in place as an independent predictor of LF. CONCLUSION: AVP, according to our simplified technique, is safe, effective, has a high success rate, and a very low complication rate. The incidence of LF was exceptionally low. The advantages of AVP are maintained over time in a population of ICD recipients.

Ultrasound-Guided Venous Axillary Access Versus Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation: ZEROFLUOROAXI Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Axillary vein puncture (AVP) and cephalic vein surgical cutdown are recommended in international guidelines because of their low risk of pneumothorax and chronic lead complications. Directly visualizing and puncturing the axillary vein under ultrasound guidance reduces radiation exposure, provides direct needle visualization, and lowers periprocedural complications. Our hypothesis is that ultrasound-guided axillary access is safer and more feasible than the standard fluoroscopic technique. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided axillary venous access during cardiac lead implantation for pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations. METHODS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either axillary venous access under fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound-guided axillary venous access. The composite outcome, including pneumothorax, hemothorax, inadvertent arterial puncture, pocket hematoma, pocket infection, lead dislodgement, and death, was evaluated 30 days after implantation. RESULTS: We randomized 270 patients into 2 groups: the standard group for fluoroguided AVP (n = 134) and the experimental group for ultrasound-guided AVP (n = 136). No disparities in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. The median age of the patients was 81 years, with women comprising 41% of the population. The majority of patients received single- and dual-chamber PMs (87% vs 88%; P = 1.00), and slightly over 10% in both groups received ICDs (13% vs 12%; P = 0.85). In total, we placed 357 leads in PMs and 48 leads in ICDs. Among these, 295 leads were inserted via axillary vein access and 110 via cephalic vein access. Notably, the subclavian vein was never used as a vascular access. The composite outcome was lower in the ultrasound group according to intention-to-treat analysis (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31-0.99; P = 0.034). The main difference within the composite outcome was the lower incidence of inadvertent axillary arterial puncture in the experimental group (17% vs 6%; P = 0.004). The ultrasound group also exhibited lower total procedural x-ray exposure (10,344 µGy × cm2 vs 7,119 µGy × cm2; P = 0.002) while achieving the same rate of success at the first attempt (61% vs 69%; P = 0.375). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided AVP is safer than the fluoroscopy-guided approach because it achieves the same rate of acute success while maintaining low total procedural radiation exposure. Ultrasound AVP should be considered the optimal venous access method for cardiac lead implantation. (Ultrasound Guided Axillary Access vs Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation [ZEROFLUOROAXI]; NCT05101720).

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.

Axillary vein puncture versus cephalic vein cutdown for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) are both recommended for transvenous implantation of leads for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Nonetheless, it is still debated which of the two techniques has a better safety and efficacy profile. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to September 5, 2022, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of AVP and CVC reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary endpoints were acute procedural success and overall complications. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, seven studies were included, which enrolled 1771 and 3067 transvenous leads (65.6% [n = 1162] males, average age 73.4 ± 14.3 years). Compared to CVC, AVP showed a significant increase in the primary endpoint (95.7 % vs. 76.1 %; RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.09-1.40; p = .001) (Figure 1). Total procedural time (mean difference [MD]: -8.25 min; 95% CI: -10.23 to -6.27; p < .0001; I2  = 0%) and venous access time (MD: -6.24 min; 95% CI: -7.01 to -5.47; p < .0001; I2  = 0%) were significantly shorter with AVP compared to CVC. No differences were found between AVP and CVC for incidence overall complications (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.28-1.10; p = .09), pneumothorax (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.13-4.0; p = .71), lead failure (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.23-1.48; p = .26), pocket hematoma/bleeding (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.15-2.23; p = .43), device infection (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.14-6.60; p = .96) and fluoroscopy time (MD: -0.24 min; 95% CI: -0.75 to 0.28; p = .36). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that AVP may improve procedural success and reduce total procedural time and venous access time compared to CVC.

Site of left axillary vein crossing the clavicle: an analysis with computed tomography venography as a guide for vein puncture for device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Blind axillary venous access is a convenient but technically difficult approach for cardiac rhythm device lead implantation. We try to explore whether there are rules on the axillary vein course to facilitate blind venous cannulation. METHODS: In a single-center, retrospective study, we included 155 patients who underwent computed tomography venography (CTV) examination of left axillary vein. All scans were reviewed for the relationship between left axillary vein and clavicle, vein steepness, and depth. Factors probably affecting above indicators were analyzed. RESULTS: The location of left axillary vein crossing the clavicle was mainly concentrated around the medial 1/3 of clavicle, with mean crossing location of the medial 1/3 of clavicle, which was not correlated with sex, age, abdominal subcutaneous fat thickness, upper thoracic kyphosis angle, or the angle between clavicle and anterior midline (P < 0.05). The average angle between axillary vein and horizontal line was 31.57 ± 11.72°, which was positively associated with age, whereas inversely associated with the angle between clavicle and anterior midline (P < 0.05). The proximal axillary vein ran more and more shallow until becoming the subclavian vein (P < 0.01); and it had a mean depth of 3 cm, which was significantly associated with abdominal subcutaneous fat thickness (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The left axillary vein and clavicle had a relatively fixed relationship that axillary vein commonly crossed the medial 1/3 of clavicle. The average angle between axillary vein and horizontal line was 31.57 ± 11.72°, associated with age and the clavicle course. The mean depth of proximal axillary vein was 3 cm, and patients with larger weight had a deeper position of axillary vein.

Ultrasound-guided access to the axillary vein for implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aims of our systematic review were to quantify the expected rate of procedural success, early and late complications during CIED implantation using US-guided puncture of the axillary vein and to perform a meta-analysis of those studies that compared the US technique (intervention) versus conventional techniques (control) in terms of complication rates. MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Pooled Odds Ratio (OR) and Pooled Mean Difference (PMD) for each predictor were calculated. The quality of evidence (QOE) was evaluated according to the GRADE guidelines. Thirteen studies were included a total of 2073 patients. The overall success of US-guided venipuncture for CIED implantation was 96.8%. As regards early complications, pneumothorax occurred in 0.19%, arterial puncture in 0.63%, and severe hematoma/bleeding requiring intervention in 1.1%. No cases of hemothorax, brachial plexus, or phrenic nerve injury were reported. As regards late complications, the incidence of pocket infection, venous thromboembolism, and leads dislodgement was respectively 0.4%, 0.8%, and 1.2%. In the meta-analysis (five studies), the intervention group (US-guided venipuncture) had a trend versus a lower likelihood of having a pneumothorax (0.19% vs 0.75%, p = 0.21), pocket hematoma (0.8% vs 1.7%, p = 0.32), infection (0.28% vs 1.05%, p = 0.29) than the control group, but this did not reach statistical significance. The overall QOE was low or very low. In conclusions we found that the US-guided axillary venipuncture for CIEDs implantation was associated with a low incidence of early and late complications and a steep learning curve.

A simple method of axillary venipuncture using single landmark for pacemaker leads implantation.

BACKGROUND: Axillary venipuncture for pacemaker lead implantation has been demonstrated to be an effective method without fatal complications encountered with standard subclavian access approach, but the relatively high complexity limits its clinical practicability. OBJECTIVE: We are proposing a simple technique for axillary venipuncture using single point on clavicle as anatomical landmark with the possibility of alternative fluoroscopic assisted puncture as a backup. METHODS: Connecting point of medial to middle third of clavicle is located as the landmark. Deflected lateral 45°from sagittal line, an 18-guage needle tip is laid on the point and tangential to upper border of clavicle. Penetrated from the hub site, the needle is directed to the landmark at approximately 30-45° relative to body surface for venipuncture. If blind puncture failed, an alternative fluoroscopic method is performed. Upon successful venipuncture, a guide wire is positioned in inferior vena cava and a skin incision and subcutaneous pocket is made at the puncture site. RESULTS: Axillary vein puncture was successful for 106 of 113 patients (93.8%) in the study with mean access time of 3.6 ± 1.4 min. In 84 patients (74.3%), the vein was cannulated by blind puncture, and fluoroscopy guided method was required in other 22 patients (19.5%). The puncture of axillary artery occurred in one patient (0.09%) and no haemorrhage was observed after local pressure. No pneumothorax, hemothorax, or brachial plexus injury was found. CONCLUSIONS: The approach of axillary vein puncture using single landmark on the clavicle is simple, effective and safe for pacemaker lead implantation.

Treatment for cephalic arch stenosis with cephalic vein to external jugular vein bridging graft.

AIM: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty or cephalic vein transposition to the axillary vein is mainly used for treatment of cephalic arch stenosis, a common complication of brachiocephalic fistulas. However, the results of such interventions have been disappointing. METHODS: We used a polytetrafluoroethylene prosthesis with a 6 mm diameter to bridge the cephalic vein and the ipsilateral external jugular vein, and successfully created a new drainage outlet and established immediate restoration of flow through brachiocephalic fistulas. RESULTS: This surgery allowed the cephalic venous arch and subclavian vein, which are vulnerable to stenosis, to be bypassed altogether and the puncture segment could be elongated by about 20 cm. CONCLUSION: It is a safe and effective alternative to traditional methods of treatment for cephalic arche stenosis.

A surgical method to be reminded for the treatment of symptomatic ipsilateral central venous occlusions in patients with hemodialysis access: Axillo-axillary venous bypass case report and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: In this case report, we present two chronic hemodialysis patients with upper extremity swelling due to central venous occlusions together with their clinical presentation, surgical management and brief review of the literature. METHODS: The first patient who was a 63-year-old female patient with a history of multiple bilateral arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) was referred to our clinic. Physical examination demonstrated a functioning right brachio-cephalic AVF, with severe edema of the right arm, dilated venous collaterals, facial edema, and unilateral breast enlargement. In her history, multiple ipsilateral subclavian venous catheterizations were present for sustaining temporary hemodialysis access. The second patient was a 47-year-old male with a history of failed renal transplant, CABG surgery, multiple AV fistula procedures from both extremities, leg amputation caused by peripheral arterial disease, and decreased myocardial functions. He was receiving 3/7 hemodialysis and admitted to our clinic with right arm edema, accompanied by pain, stiffness, and skin hyperpigmentation symptoms ipsilateral to a functioning brachio-basilic AVF. He was not able to flex his arms, elbow, or wrist due to severe edema. RESULTS: Venography revealed right subclavian vein stenosis with patent contralateral central veins in the first patient. She underwent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) twice with subsequent re-occlusions. After failed attempts of PTA, the patient was scheduled for axillo-axillary venous bypass in order to preserve the AV access function. In second patient, venography revealed right subclavian vein occlusion caused secondary to the subclavian venous catheters. Previous attempts for percutaneously crossing the chronic subclavian lesion failed multiple times by different centers. Hence, the patient was scheduled for axillo-axillary venous bypass surgery. CONCLUSION: In case of chronic venous occlusions, endovascular procedures may be ineffective. Since preserving the vascular access function is crucial in this particular patient population, venous bypass procedures should be kept in mind as an alternative for central venous reconstruction, before deciding on ligation and relocation of the AVF.

UltraSound Axillary Vein Access (USAA): Learning curve and randomized comparison to traditional venous access for cardiac device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Many techniques exist for venous access (VA) during cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the learning curve with ultrasound (US) guided axillary vein access (USAA). METHODS: Single-center prospective randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing CIED implantation. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to USAA versus conventional VA techniques. The primary outcomes were the success rates, VA times and 30-day complication rates. RESULTS: The study included 100 patients (age 68 ± 14 years, BMI 27 ± 4 kg/m2 ). USAA was successful in 66/70 implants (94%). Initial attempts at conventional VA included 47% axillary (n = 14), 30% (n = 9) cephalic, and 23% (n = 7) subclavian. The median access time was longer for USAA than conventional access (8.3 IQR 4.2-15.3 min vs. 5.2 IQR 3.4-8.6 min, p = .009). Among the five inexperienced USAA implanters, there was a significant improvement in median access time from first to last tertile of USAA implants (17.0 IQR 7.0-21.0 min to 8.6 IQR 4.5-10.8 min, p = .038). The experienced USAA implanter had similar access times with USAA compared with conventional access (4.0 IQR 3.3-4.7 min vs. 5.2 IQR 3.4-8.6 min, p = .15). Venograms were less common with USAA than conventional access (2% vs. 33%, p < .0001). The 30-day complication rate was similar with USAA (n = 4/70, 6%) versus conventional (n = 3/30, 10%, p = .44). CONCLUSION: Although the success rate with USAA was high, there was a significant learning curve. Once experienced with the USAA technique, there is the potential for reduced complications without adding to the procedure duration.

Conversion of Arterio-Venous Access of Hemodialysis to Arterio-Arterial Access for Treatment of Venous hypertension with Central Venous Occlusion.

This report describes conversion of arterio-venous graft or fistula to arterio-arterial vascular access as a new surgical treatment option for central venous occlusion. It starts with control of the axillary vein and the synthetic graft or superficialized vein proximally, the suture line of venous anastomosis is closed and end-to-side anastomosis of the synthetic graft or vein to the brachial artery (BA) is done, then ligation of the BA distal to the anastomosis is done. Now the blood flow is directed through synthetic graft or vein from proximal to distal BA that can be used as arterio-arterial vascular access for hemodialysis.

Late Basilic Vein Superficialization Combined with Revision Using Distal Inflow (RUDI) Operation to Treat a Symptomatic High Flow Fistula.

BACKGROUND: Vascular access (VA)-related high flows (HF) are common with brachial artery based fistulas. Flow-reduction procedures are indicated in symptomatic patients or asymptomatic ones with flows >2 L/min. However concomitant issues increase their complexity. We describe a case of a patient suffering congestive heart failure as a result of HF brachial-basilic fistula >3 L/min. A simultaneous late basilic vein transposition and revision using distal inflow (RUDI) was performed. METHODS: A large diameter untransposed arterialized basilic vein was carefully and completely mobilized up to the proximal upper arm. After harvesting an autologous great saphenous vein (GSV) segment, a new inflow anastomosis was performed in the proximal ulnar artery. At the final stage, and after tunneling the mobilizing basilic vein in a subcutaneous semicircular configuration, an end-to-end anastomosis joining the two stumps (basilic vein outflow portion and GSV inflow arterial portion) was performed. A decision-making process in order to reach this complex option is discussed. Results Access flow and cardiac output were greatly attenuated following our approach. After a mean follow-up of 9 months no VA complications were observed, with flow still detected below 2 L/min. All cardiac symptoms and ultrasound investigations improved. CONCLUSION: Multiple VA issues including HF pose a risk for abandonment and a challenge for the vascular surgeon. An effort toward increasing the "upper extremity life span" is advised.