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.

Different venous approaches for implantation of cardiac electronic devices. A network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Many of the complications arising from cardiac device implantation are associated to the venous access used for lead placement. Previous analyses reported that cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) is safer but less effective than subclavian vein puncture (SVP). However, comparisons between these techniques and axillary vein puncture (AVP) - guided either by ultrasound or fluoroscopy - are lacking. Thus, we aimed to compare safety and efficacy of these approaches. METHODS: We searched for articles assessing at least two different approaches regarding the incidence of pneumothorax and/or lead failure (LF). When available, bleeding and infectious complications as well as procedural success were analyzed. A frequentist random effects network meta-analysis model was adopted. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were analyzed. Most articles assessed SVP versus CVC. Compared to SVP, both CVC and AVP were associated with reduced odds of pneumothorax (OR: 0.193, 95%CI: 0.136-0.275 and OR: 0.128, 95%CI: 0.050-0.329; respectively) and LF (OR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.406-0.976 and OR: 0.425, 95%CI: 0.286-0.632; respectively). No significant differences between AVP and CVC were demonstrated. Limited data suggests no major impact of different approaches on infectious and bleeding complications. Initial CVC approach required significantly more often an alternate/additional venous access for lead placement, compared to both AVP and SVP. No differences between these two were identified. CONCLUSION: Both AVP and CVC seem to decrease incident pneumothorax and LF, compared to SVP. Initial AVP approach seems to decrease the need of alternate venous access, compared to CVC. These results suggest that AVP should be further clinically tested.

Venous access and long-term pacemaker lead failure: comparing contrast-guided axillary vein puncture with subclavian puncture and cephalic cutdown.

AIMS: Existing data on the relationship between venous access and long-term pacemaker lead failure (PLF) are scarce and inconsistent. We aim to study the hypothesis that contrast-guided axillary vein puncture (AP) is better than subclavian puncture (SP) and similar to cephalic vein cutdown (CV) in the incidence of PLF and the success rate of AP is higher than CV. METHODS AND RESULTS: The case records of 409 patients with 681 implantable pacemaker leads were reviewed. Two hundred and fifty-two, 217, and 212 leads were implanted via AP, CV, and SP, respectively. With a mean follow-up of 73.6 ± 33.1 months, 20 (2.9%) PLF occurred. Three (1.2%), 5 (2.3%), and 12 (5.6%) PLF occurred in the AP, CV, and SP groups, respectively. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, the only independent predictor for PLF was the use of SP instead of AP (AP vs. SP; hazard ratio: 0.261; 95% confidence interval: 0.071-0.954, P = 0.042). The success rate of CV (78.2%) was significantly lower than those of AP (97.6%) and SP (96.8%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with SP, the use of AP but not CV independently predicted a lower risk of PLF. The success rates in achieving venous accesses were similar between AP and SP, but significantly lower for CV. Axillary vein puncture may thus be considered the venous access of choice for pacemaker lead implantation.

Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports.

BACKGROUND: Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) provide patients with a safe and permanent venous access, for instance in the administration of chemotherapy for oncology patients. There are several methods for TIVAP placement, and the optimal evidence-based method is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of three commonly used techniques for implanting TIVAPs: the venous cutdown technique, the Seldinger technique, and the modified Seldinger technique. This review includes studies that use Doppler or real-time two-dimensional ultrasonography for locating the vein in the Seldinger technique. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched August 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 7), as well as clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials that randomly allocated people requiring TIVAP to the venous cutdown, Seldinger, or modified Seldinger technique. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion eligibility, with a third review author checking excluded studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed all studies for risk of bias. We assessed heterogeneity using Chi(2) statistic and variance (I(2)statistic) methods. Dichotomous outcomes, summarised as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), were: primary implantation success, complications (in particular infection), pneumothorax, and catheter complications. We conducted separate analyses to assess the two access veins, subclavian and internal jugular (IJ) vein, in the Seldinger technique versus the venous cutdown technique. We used both intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment analyses and pooled data using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with a total of 1253 participants in the review. Five studies compared Seldinger technique (subclavian vein access) with venous cutdown technique (cephalic vein access). Two studies compared Seldinger (IJ vein) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein). One study compared the modified Seldinger technique (cephalic vein) with the venous cutdown (cephalic vein), and one study compared the Seldinger (subclavian vein) versus the Seldinger (IJ vein) technique.Seldinger technique (subclavian or IJ vein access) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein): We included seven trials with 1006 participants for analysis. Both ITT (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.65) and on-treatment analysis (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.98) showed that the Seldinger technique for implantation of TIVAP had a higher success rate compared with the venous cutdown technique. We found no difference between overall peri- and postoperative complication rates: ITT (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.75) and on-treatment analysis (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.40). In the Seldinger group, the majority of the trials reported use of the subclavian vein for venous access, with only a limited number of trials utilising the IJ vein for access. When individual complication rates of infection, pneumothorax, and catheter complications were analysed, the Seldinger technique (subclavian vein access) was associated with a higher rate of catheter complications compared to the venous cutdown technique: ITT (OR 6.77; 95% CI 2.31 to 19.79) and on-treatment analysis (OR 6.62; 95% CI 2.24 to 19.58). There was no difference in incidence of infections, pneumothorax, and other complications between the groups.Modified Seldinger technique (cephalic vein) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein): We identified one trial with 164 participants. ITT analysis showed no difference in primary implantation success rate between the modified Seldinger technique (69/82, 84%) and the venous cutdown technique (66/82, 80%), P = 0.686. We observed no differences in the peri- or postoperative complication rates.Seldinger (subclavian vein access) versus Seldinger (IJ vein access): We identified one trial with 83 participants. The primary success rate was 84% (37/44) for Seldinger (subclavian vein) versus 74% (29/39) for the Seldinger (IJ vein). There was a higher overall complication rate in the subclavian group (48%) compared to the jugular group (23%), P = 0.02. However, when specific complications were compared individually, we found no differences between the groups.The overall quality of the trials included in this review was moderate. The methods used for randomisation were inadequate in four of the nine included studies, but sensitivity analysis excluding these trials did not alter the outcome. The nature of the interventions, either venous cutdown or Seldinger techniques, meant that it was not feasible to blind the participant or personnel, therefore we judged this to be at low risk of bias. The majority of participants in the included trials were oncology patients at tertiary centres, and the outcomes were applicable to the typical clinical scenario. For all outcomes, when comparing venous cutdown and Seldinger technique, serious imprecision was evident by wide confidence intervals in the included trials. The quality of the overall evidence was therefore downgraded from high to moderate. Due to the limited number of included studies we were unable to assess publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence showed that the Seldinger technique has a higher primary implantation success rate compared with the venous cutdown technique. The majority of trials using the Seldinger technique used the subclavian vein for venous access, and only a few trials reported the use of the internal jugular vein for venous access. Moderate-quality evidence showed no difference in the overall complication rate between the Seldinger and venous cutdown techniques. However, when the Seldinger technique with subclavian vein access was compared with the venous cutdown group, there was a higher reported incidence of catheter complications. The rates of pneumothorax and infection did not differ between the Seldinger and venous cutdown group. We identified only one trial for each of the comparisons modified Seldinger technique (cephalic vein) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein) and Seldinger (subclavian vein access) versus Seldinger (IJ vein access), thus a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn for these comparisons and further research is recommended.

[Control study of total percutaneous access with preclose technique versus open femoral artery exposure for endovascular aneurysm repair].

OBJECTIVE: To compare total percutaneous access using preclose technique with femoral artery cut-down in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and assess the safety and feasibility of preclose technique. METHODS: In the study, 81 cases undergoing EVAR from Dec. 2011 to Nov. 2014 in Peking University People's Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative CT angiography (CTA) showed presence of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm or descending aortic aneurysm in all the cases. The maximum diameter of aneurysm >4.5 cm met the indications for surgical treatment. The conditions of bilateral femoral artery and iliac artery CTA showed were good, and there was no moderate or severe stenosis, nor was there any severe calcification in anterior wall of femoral artery. Not only were the cases fit for percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR), but also feasible with open endovascular aneurysm repair (OEVAR). According to the intention of the patients about the surgical incision, the cases were divided into group PEVAR and group OEVAR. The data of the general situation, operation time, blood loss, technical success rate, length of hospital stay after procedure and wound complications were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: In the study, 44 cases (78 incisions) were enrolled in group PEVAR and 37 cases (65 incisions) in group OEVAR. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), accompanying diseases, average number of stents and outer diameter of stent delivery system. Average operation time of group PEVAR was less than that of group OEVAR [(119.1±102.0) min vs. (163.6±61.9) min, P=0.025]. The blood loss in group PEVAR was less than that in group OEVAR [(64.7±97.0) mL vs. (98.6±88.3) mL], but there was no significant difference (P=0.106). There was no difference in the technical success rate (94.9% vs.95.4%, P=1.000). The average length of hospital stay after procedure was significantly shorter in group PEVAR [(7.8±2.8) d vs.(12.3±7.2) d, P<0.001]. There were 2 cases with subcutaneous hematoma of wound in group PEVAR and 7 cases of wound complications that occurred in group OEVAR including 3 cases with lymphatic leakage, 3 cases with lower limb ischemia and 1 case with subcutaneous hematoma. The analysis showed that PEVAR could reduce the wound complications (2.6%vs.10.8%), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.079). CONCLUSION: Using preclose technique in EVAR is safe and effective. It can shorten the operation time and length of hospital stay after procedure.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous subclavian vein puncture versus surgical venous cutdown for the insertion of a totally implantable venous access device.

BACKGROUND: Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) are commonly used in patients with cancer. Although several methods of implantation have been described, there is not enough evidence to support the use of a specific technique on a daily basis. The objective of this study was systematically to assess the literature comparing percutaneous subclavian vein puncture with surgical venous cutdown. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched by two independent authors. No time limits were applied. A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration, including randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous subclavian vein puncture with surgical venous cutdown. RESULTS: Six trials were included, with 772 patients overall. The primary implantation failure rate was significantly lower for the percutaneous approach compared with surgical cutdown (odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.07 to 0.94; P = 0.039). There was no evidence supporting a significant difference in terms of risk of pneumothorax, haematoma, venous thrombosis, infectious events or catheter migration. After taking between-study heterogeneity into account by using a random-effects model, procedure duration was not significantly longer for surgical cutdown: weighted mean difference +4 (95 per cent c.i. -12 to 20) min (P = 0.625). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous subclavian vein puncture is associated with a higher TIVAD implantation success rate and a procedure duration similar to that of surgical cutdown. Pneumothorax develops exclusively after percutaneous puncture and requires special attention from clinicians dealing with TIVAD insertion.

Cephalic vein cutdown for totally implantable central venous port in children: a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

BACKGROUND: The jugular vein cutdown for a totally implantable central venous port (TICVP) has 2 disadvantages: 2 separate incisions are needed and the risk for multiple vein occlusions. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of a cephalic vein (CV) cutdown in children. METHODS: We prospectively followed patients who underwent a venous cutdown for implantation of a TICVP between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2006. For patients younger than 8 months, an external jugular vein cutdown was initially tried without attempting a CV cutdown. For patients older than 8 months, a CV cutdown was tried initially. We recorded information on age, weight, outcome of the CV cutdown and complications. RESULTS: During the study period, 143 patients underwent a venous cutdown for implantation of a TICVP: 25 younger and 118 older than 8 months. The CV cutdown was successful in 73 of 118 trials. The 25th percentile and median body weight for 73 successful cases were 15.4 kg and 28.3 kg, respectively. There was a significant difference in the success rate using the criterion of 15 kg as the cutoff. The overall complication rate was 8.2%. CONCLUSION: The CV cutdown was an acceptable procedure for TICVP in children. It could be preferentially considered for patients weighing more than 15 kg who require TICVP.

CONTEXTE: La dissection de la jugulaire pour la mise en place d'un dispositif d'accès veineux central totalement implantable comporte 2 inconvénients : 2 incisions distinctes sont nécessaires et il y a un risque de multiples occlusions veineuses. Nous avons voulu évaluer la faisabilité d'une dissection de la veine céphalique chez les enfants. MÉTHODES: Nous avons suivi de manière prospective des patients soumis à une dissection veineuse pour implantation d'un dispositif d'accès veineux central entre le 1er janvier 2002 et le 31 décembre 2006. Pour les patients de moins de 8 mois, une dissection de la jugulaire externe a d'abord été tentée, sans tentative de dissection de la veine céphalique. Pour les patients de plus de 8 mois, une dissection de la veine céphalique a d'abord été tentée. Nous avons noté l'âge, le poids, l'issue de la dissection de la veine céphalique et les complications. RÉSULTATS: Au cours de la période de l'étude, 143 patients ont subi une dissection veineuse pour pose d'un dispositif d'accès veineux central totalement implantable : 25 avaient moins de 8 mois et 118 avaient plus de 8 mois. La dissection de la veine céphalique a réussi lors de 73 tentatives sur 118. Le poids du 25e percentile et le poids médian pour les 73 cas réussis étaient de 15,4 kg et de 28,3 kg, respectivement. On a observé une différence significative du taux de réussite associé au critère du poids seuil de 15 kg. Le taux global de complications a été de 8,2 %. CONCLUSION: La dissection de la veine céphalique a été une intervention acceptable pour la pose de dispositifs d'accès veineux centraux totalement implantables chez les enfants. Elle pourrait être envisagée chez les patients de plus de 15 kg qui ont besoin d'un dispositif d'accès veineux central implantable.

Direct anchoring technique for pacing and defibrillation leads inserted through cephalic vein: insight for a single high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Direct anchoring of PM and ICD leads over cephalic vein body is officially discouraged by manufactures due to a supposed risk of conductor fracture or insulation failure, however careful tightening of anchoring knots can probably prevent lead damage. Direct anchoring (DA) technique is routinely used in our center for all leads inserted by cephalic vein while standard anchoring sleeves are used to secure subclavian leads only. Aim of the study is to assess short- and long-term safety of cephalic direct anchoring technique. METHODS: All patients undergoing PM and ICD implantation in our center from November 2014 to March 2016 were consecutively enrolled. Primary endpoints were acute lead fracture, lead dislodgement and chronic lead failure. Secondary endpoint was a composite of short-term surgical complications (pocket hematoma, pneumothorax, and pericardial effusion) plus device infections. Subclavian leads secured with sleeve anchoring (SA) were used as control. RESULTS: A total of 550 leads were implanted in 310 consecutive patients. DA involved 323 leads (59%) while SA was used for 227 (41%). Median follow-up was 50 months (IQR 24-62 months). 17 lead malfunctions (3.1%) were observed during follow-up. No difference was observed between groups (10 DA vs. 7 SP, P=ns). Survival analysis found no difference between groups. Secondary endpoints were not statistically different between groups (5 vs. 1, P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Direct anchoring technique of PM and ICD leads is a safe technique and does not increase lead malfunction risk.

Perioperative complications after pacemaker implantation: higher complication rates with subclavian vein puncture than with cephalic vein cutdown.

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.

Comparison of success rate and time to obtain venous cannulation by cutdown technique at 3 locations using canine cadavers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the success rates and time taken to cannulate the jugular, cephalic, and lateral saphenous veins using a cutdown technique by personnel with 4 different levels of experience. DESIGN: Prospective ex vivo study. SETTING: Veterinary university teaching hospital. ANIMALS: Eighteen canine cadavers. INTERVENTIONS: Recently euthanized canine patients that were donated to the hospital for research purposes between October 2019 and March 2020 were enrolled. Four groups of personnel participated in the study to give 4 varying levels of experience: 8 final year veterinary students, 2 registered veterinary nurses, 1 emergency and critical care intern and 1 ACVECC diplomate. Each cannula placer had 5 minutes to attempt cannulation by venous cutdown at each site. Time to venous cannulation (VC) was compared for each site and group and complications encountered during each attempt recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The overall success rate for cannulation of the jugular, cephalic, and lateral saphenous veins were 81%, 84%, and 87%, respectively. The median times for venous cutdown for all personnel were as follows: jugular vein 119 s (range 51-280 s), cephalic vein 82 s (range 39-291 s), and lateral saphenous vein 110 s (range 41-294 s). There was no difference in time to VC between veins. When comparing personnel at the 3 cannulation sites, the ACVECC diplomate was faster than the registered veterinary nurses and students (P = 0.042 and P = 0.048, respectively). No differences were found between any other groups. Complications encountered often related to cadaver factors such as hematoma from antemortem venipuncture. CONCLUSIONS: All groups were able to perform venous cutdown at each site with good overall success even without prior experience of the technique. VC by cutdown technique of the jugular, cephalic, or lateral saphenous veins may be considered in an emergency setting by personnel of various skill levels.

Vascular access for haemodialysis in patients with central vein thrombosis.

OBJECTIVES: Dialysis-dependent patients often have central venous drainage complications. In patients with functioning arm arteriovenous fistula, this may result in venous hypertension, arm oedema and vascular access failure. Percutaneous angioplasty and stent implantation might be inadequate to resolve these issues. In these cases, new access can potentially be created with anastomosis to the subclavian vein, iliac vein or vena cava or by making a veno-venous graft to bypass the thrombosis. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of unusual bypasses in vascular access in patients with the central vein thrombosis. MATERIALS: A total of 49 patients were treated. The mean number of previous vascular access surgery procedures was 7.6 (3-17). We performed 19 axillo-iliac, 14 axillo-axillary bypasses and 16 conduits from the arm fistula to the jugular (nine conduits) or subclavian (seven conduits) vein for haemodialysis purposes. RESULTS: All fistulas except one were used for haemodialysis. One patient died before the first use of the fistula. At 12 months, the primary, primary assisted and secondary patency rates were 85.4%, 89.6% and 95.8%, respectively. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 84 months. CONCLUSION: Unusual grafts are an efficient option as a permanent vascular access for haemodialysis purposes in patients with central vein occlusion.

[Advantages of endovenous laser coagulation in surgical management of varicose disease].

Presented in the article are the results of endovenous laser coagulation of the greater saphenous vein in a total of ony hundred seventeen patients suffering from varicose disease. Favourable outcomes consisted in achieving complete removal of the vertical reflux, accompanied and followed by rapid rehabilitation, an utterly low complication rate, and an excellent cosmetic effect obtained.

Improved 'cut-down' technique for transvenous pacemaker lead implantation.

AIMS: We improved the cut-down approach aiming at minimizing the subclavian/axillary vein puncture during implantation of permanent pacemaker leads. METHODS AND RESULTS: We incorporated previously reported refinements of the cut-down approach, i.e. the use of a hydrophilic guidewire when direct lead insertion failed and cannulation of retro-pectoral veins in cases of insufficient calliper of the cephalic vein. In addition, we introduced two further techniques, namely the simultaneous use of two guidewires and the use of stiff angiography guidewires. The efficacy of this integrated 'no-puncture' strategy was assessed in the first consecutive 200 patients and was compared with the 'standard' approach in an equal number of consecutive preceding implantations. Puncture was required more often (P < 0.0001) in the 'standard'-approach group (40/200; 20.0%). The 'no-puncture' policy was successful in 192/200 (96%) of implantations over a course of 40 months with absence of major complications. This was due to more frequent (P < 0.0001) use of hydrophilic guidewires (49.0% vs. 9.5% of cases), as well as due to cannulation of retro-pectoral veins (3.5%), use of a second guidewire (16.0%) and use of stiff guidewires (7.0%). CONCLUSION: The improved cut-down approach obviates subclavian/axillary puncture in the vast majority of cases and improves the safety of pacemaker implantation.

Randomized clinical trial comparing venous cutdown with the Seldinger technique for placement of implantable venous access ports.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this randomized controlled study was to compare the primary success rate between venous cutdown and the Seldinger technique for placement of the totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP). METHODS: A total of 152 patients were randomized to receive TIVAP placement by either venous cutdown or the Seldinger technique. The main endpoint was the primary success rate. Secondary endpoints included overall success rate, procedure time and perioperative complication rates. Multiple logistic regression analysis was undertaken to assess the influence of different variables on primary success. RESULTS: The primary success rate was 71 per cent for venous cutdown and 90 per cent for the Seldinger technique (P = 0.007). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter for the Seldinger technique (48.9 versus 64.8 min; P < 0.001). The overall success rate was 97.4 per cent. The rate of perioperative complications was similar for the two approaches (5 per cent), but was higher when a procedure was converted. The variables sex, body mass index, implantation side and surgeon experience had no impact on the primary success rate. CONCLUSION: The Seldinger technique was more effective and quicker than venous cutdown, and should be regarded as the method of choice for TIVAP placement. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00272623 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Is it more difficult to cannulate the right internal jugular vein in morbidly obese patients than in nonobese patients?

BACKGROUND: The placement of an internal jugular vein (IJV) catheter is considered to be more difficult in morbidly obese patients. The objective of this study was to compare the success of simulated IJV puncture between morbidly obese patients and a nonobese control group. METHODS: Thirty-four morbidly obese patients with body mass index (BMI, kg/m(2)) >/=40 were compared with 36 patients with BMI < 30. Right IJV puncture was simulated using an ultrasound probe directed towards the sternal notch at the midpoint between the sternal notch and the mastoid process. The investigator placing the probe was blinded as to the image being created on the ultrasound machine. Success rate was assessed at three different head rotation angles from midline; 0 degrees , 30 degrees , and 60 degrees . RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in successful simulated IJV puncture between two groups for any of the head positions. However, there was a higher incidence of the carotid artery (CA) puncture in the morbidly obese patient group when the head rotation was advanced from neutral position to 60 degrees (p < 0.05). In addition, the ultrasound showed significantly more overlapping of the IJV over the CA in morbidly obese patients at 0 degrees (p < 0.05) and 30 degrees (p < 0.05). Our results show no statistically significant difference in success rate of IJV puncture between morbidly obese patients and nonobese patients. Keeping the head in a neutral position in morbidly obese patients minimizes the overlapping of the IJV over the CA and the risk of CA puncture. CONCLUSION: However, due to the fact that even in the neutral position there is a significant increase in overlap between IJV and CA, we recommend the use of ultrasound guidance for IJV cannulation in obese patients.

A Prospective, Comparative Evaluation on Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices by External Jugular Vein versus Cephalic Vein Cutdown.

The request for totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) has rapidly grown up through the last decades. TIVADs are implanted by direct vein puncture or by surgical approach with vein cutdown. The authors present a comparative prospective study evaluating external jugular vein (EJV) and cephalic vein cutdown techniques. Two hundred and fifteen patients were consecutively submitted to TIVAD implantation to perform chemotherapy. Patients were divided in two groups, depending on the implantation technique. Group A patients (106) underwent implantation via EJV cutdown and group B (109) patients underwent implantation by cephalic vein cutdown. The following variables were investigated: operating time, need for conversion to other approaches, complications, and intraoperative and postoperative pain. In Group A patients, the success rate of the procedure was 100 per cent, whereas in 11 patients (10.1%) of Group B, a modification of the initial approach was needed. Mean operative time was 23.9 ± 9.2 minutes in Group A and 35.4 ± 11.9 in Group B, and this was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Complication rates at 30 days were similar. Considering intraoperative pain, a difference was found between the two groups because the mean value of pain in Group A was lower than that in Group B (4.13 ± 0.3 vs 5.22 ± 1.24), even if not significant. External jugular vein cutdown approach is quick and safe and allows a very high success rate with very low risk of complications. For these reasons, this approach could be considered as a first choice in TIVAD placement.

Experience of anesthesiologists with percutaneous nonangiographic venous access.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare percutaneous nonangiographic insertion of a venous access device with a standard surgical cutdown insertion technique. DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, randomized study. SETTING: Operating room and anesthesia induction room of a university hospital. PATIENTS: 100 consecutive oncology patients scheduled for intravenous chemotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to two groups: (1) The percutaneous group received implantation through the internal jugular vein by experienced anesthesiologists, whereas (2) the surgical group received venous cutdown insertion through the cephalic or subclavian vein by surgeons (n = 50 for each group). MEASUREMENTS: Duration of procedure, long-term device function, complications such as hematoma formation, infection, hemothorax, pneumothorax, and patients' satisfaction with the placement procedure at two months of follow-up were all measured and recorded. MAIN RESULTS: The percutaneous technique was found to have several advantages, including reduced time for insertion and greater patient satisfaction with procedure. The percutaneously implanted devices also had fewer insertion-associated complications. CONCLUSION: The simplified, percutaneous, nonangiographic technique is as effective as the traditional venous cutdown technique and can be safely done by surgeons as well as by experienced physicians who are not surgeons.

Percutaneous versus Cut-Down Technique for Indwelling Port Placement.

The superiority of surgical cut-down of the cephalic vein versus percutaneous catheterization of the subclavian vein for the insertion of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) is debated. To compare the safety and efficacy of surgical cut-down versus percutaneous placement of TIVADs. This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study of oncologic patients who had TIVADs implanted by 14 surgeons. Primary outcomes were inability to place TIVAD by the primary approach and postoperative complications within 30 days. Multivariate analysis was performed by logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included operative time. Two hundred and forty-seven (55.9%) percutaneous and 195 (44.1%) cephalic cut-down patients were identified. The 30-day complication rate was 5.2 per cent: 14 patients (5.7%) in the percutaneous and nine (4.6%) in the cut-down group. The technique was not a significant predictor of having a 30-day complication (odds ratio = 0.820; 95% confidence interval 0.342-1.879). Implantation failure was observed in 16 percutaneous patients (6.5%) and 28 cut-down patients (14.4%) (adjusted odds ratio for cephalic vs cut-down = 2.387; 95% confidence interval 1.275-4.606). The median operative time for percutaneous patients was 46 minutes (interquartile range = 35, 59) versus 37.5 minutes (interquartile range = 30, 49) for cut-down patients(P < 0.0001). Both the percutaneous and cut-down technique are safe and effective for TIVAD implantation. Operative times were shorter and the odds of implantation failure higher for cephalic cut-down. As implantation failure is common, surgeons should familiarize themselves with both techniques.

Long-term clinical outcomes of the single-incision technique for implantation of implantable venous access ports via the axillary vein.

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term clinical outcomes and complications of the single-incision technique for implantation of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) via the axillary vein. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 932 TIVAPs were placed in 927 patients between May 2012 and October 2014 using a single-incision technique. Patients included 620 men and 307 women with a mean age of 60.0 years. TIVAPs were placed via the left (n = 475) and right (n = 457) axillary veins after making a single oblique vertical incision and medial side pocket without subcutaneous tunneling. We retrospectively reviewed medical records to evaluate status of the patients and TIVAPs, complications, and reasons for explantation. In patients who still had a TIVAP in place, we calculated the duration of TIVAP use from the cut-off day of November 1, 2015. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up was obtained for a total device service period of 311,069 days with a median indwelling time of 467 days (range: 3-1097 days). A total of 37 (4.0%) complications developed. Early complications (n = 4) were one case each of stenosis of the brachiocephalic vein by tumor growth, thrombosis of axillary vein, intravascular migration, and malfunction depending on patient's position. Late complications (n = 33) were suspected catheter-related blood stream infection (n = 23), local infection of the pocket (n = 4), symptomatic stenosis and thrombosis of central vein (n = 4), malfunction by fibrin sleeve (n = 1), and intravascular migration (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: A single-incision technique for TIVAP implantation via the axillary vein seems to be safe with a low risk of complication.