Cephalic Vein Cut-Down Method for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: A Single-Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of chemotherapies has increased the need for totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs). Previously, the subclavian puncture approach with the landmark technique was the most used implantation method; however, it has been related to early complications such as pneumothorax, hemothorax, and arterial puncture. Therefore, a safer implantation method is required. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the cephalic vein cut-down method used in our institution. METHODS: Patients who underwent TIVAPs implantation using the cephalic vein cut-down method as the first choice between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, were included in this study. We retrospectively evaluated the technical success rates, operation times, and early complications. RESULTS: This study included 221 adult patients (men, 129; women, 92), with a mean age of 68 ± 11 years. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 21 ± 4 kg/m2. A total of 213 patients (96.4%) had malignant tumors that required chemotherapy. The mean postoperative follow-up period was 659 ± 442 days (range, 5-1,698 days). A total of 127 patients (57.5%) died during the follow-up period. The technical success rate was 86.4% (191/221). There were 30 failures, 24 of which were converted to the subclavian vein puncture approach. The mean operation time was 53 ± 21 min. Early complications were observed in 4 (1.8%) patients, corresponding to an incidence of 0.028 complications/1,000 catheter days. One patient had an unintended arterial puncture; however, it was not a result of the cephalic vein cut-down method but a secondary result of the subclavian vein puncture. No complications of pneumothorax, hemothorax, or arterial puncture were observed with the cephalic vein cut-down method. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the cephalic vein cut-down method for TIVAPs had an acceptable success rate and fewer early complications than the conventional puncture techniques.

Subclavian and Axillary Vein Access Versus Cephalic Vein Cutdown for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transvenous access is a fundamental step during implantation of CIEDs. However, the preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate, and the decision depends on patient characteristics and operator experience. METHODS: A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian vein puncture (SVP) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) versus cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and various scientific conferences from inception to July 1, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were eligible that included 35,722 patients (SVP, n = 18,009; AVP, n = 409; and CVC, n = 17,304). Compared with CVC, SVP was associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax (RR: 4.88; 95% CI: 2.95 to 8.06) and device/lead failure (RR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.09), whereas there was no significant difference in these outcomes compared with AVP. Acute procedural success was significantly higher with SVP compared with CVC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.53). There was no significant difference in other complications such as pocket hematoma/bleeding, device infection, or pericardial effusion between SVP or AVP compared with CVC. CONCLUSIONS: CVC was associated with a lower risk of pneumothorax and lead failure compared with SVP. AVP and CVC are both effective approaches for CIED lead implantation and offer the potential to avoid the complications usually observed with traditional SVP.

Ultrasound-based prediction of cephalic vein cutdown success prior to totally implantable venous access device placement.

BACKGROUND: Surgical venous cutdown is a method for totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) insertion. The main drawback of this technique is its higher failure rate when compared with the percutaneous approach, which is mostly related to anatomic variations of the cephalic vein. The aim of this study was to assess preoperative ultrasound imaging as a tool to predict cephalic vein cutdown failure for TIVAD insertion. METHODS: Ultrasound and operative reports of a cohort of patients undergoing TIVAD insertion by cephalic vein cutdown were reviewed. Ultrasound venous (vein visibility, diameter, length, subcutaneous depth, vein path, and subclavian junction visibility) and patient variables were tested by logistic regression as predictors of TIVAD insertion failure. RESULTS: One hundred sixty consecutive patients underwent cephalic vein cutdown for attempted TIVAD insertion. An inability to visualize the vein on the preoperative ultrasound examination (odds ratio, 4.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-12.30; P < .05) and depth of the vein (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.15; P = .042) were predictors of failure of TIVAD insertion by cephalic vein cutdown. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative ultrasound examination allows identifying patients at risk of failure of TIVAD insertion by cephalic vein cutdown. Preoperative ultrasound examination constitutes an efficient tool for choosing the most appropriate surgical approach and improving patient comfort.

Prediction of Acute Postoperative Pain from Assessment of Pain Associated With Venous Cannulation.

BACKGROUND: It has previously been reported that venous cannulation-induced pain (VCP) can be used to predict acute postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients rating VCP at ≥2.0 VAS units had 3.4 times higher risk for moderate or severe pain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if VCP scores of ≥2.0 VAS units are associated with higher risk for acute postoperative pain after various common surgical procedures. METHODS: In a prospective clinical observational study, 600 male and female 18- to 80-year-old patients scheduled for elective surgery were included. The primary outcome measure was the difference in maximum postoperative pain intensity between low responders (VCP < 2.0) and high responders (VCP ≥ 2.0) to VCP. Secondary outcome measures were the difference in proportion of patients with moderate or severe postoperative pain between low and high responders, and potential influence of age, gender, and preoperative habitual pain. RESULTS: Patients scoring VCP ≥2.0 VAS units reported higher acute postoperative pain intensity levels than those scoring VCP <2.0 VAS units (median 3.0 [interquartile range 0.0 to 5.0] vs. 0.2 [interquartile range 0.0 to 4.0], P = 0.001), and also had 1.7 times higher risk for moderate or severe postoperative pain (P = 0.005). Moderate or severe postoperative pain was reported by 38% of patients with VCP scores of ≥2.0 VAS units and by 26% with VCP scores of <2.0 VAS units (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Scoring of VCP intensity before surgery, requiring no specific equipment or training, is useful to predict individual risks for moderate or severe postoperative pain, regardless of patient age or gender, in a setting involving different kinds of surgery.

Cephalic vs. subclavian lead implantation in cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and subclavian puncture (SP) are widely used techniques for lead insertion of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Whether one technique is superior to the other, is still being debated. The purpose of this study was to compare CVC vs. SP for lead implantation in CIEDs with respect to the incidence of pneumothorax, lead failure, and bleeding. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic search of the pertinent literature on lead implantation in CIEDs via PubMed and Cochrane databases published over the last 25 years. Standard meta-analytic methods were applied to compare incidences of outcomes of interest. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the impact of each study on the overall effect size. Risk of publication bias was assessed. A total of 20 studies were included in the analysis. These studies comprised more than 30 000 patients with more than 50 000 leads implanted via CVC or SP. The incidence of pneumothorax was lower with the CVC technique (n = 29/15 065, 0.19% vs. n = 205/15 824, 1.30%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.42, P < 0.001]. With respect to overall lead failure, CVC was associated with better outcomes as compared to SP (n = 10/2002, 0.50% vs. n = 40/2080, 1.92%) (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13-0.51, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in bleeding events (n = 25/811, 3.08% vs. n = 20/2136, 0.94%) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.37-7.79, P = 0.50). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrates lower risk for pneumothorax and lead failure associated with CVC as compared to SP. Cephalic vein cutdown should constitute the preferred venous access.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

Evaluation of totally implantable central venous access devices with the cephalic vein cut-down approach: Usefulness of preoperative ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this retrospective study, were to evaluate totally implantable central venous access device (TICVAD) implantation and to validate the efficacy of preoperative ultrasonography. METHODS: A total of 380 cases implanted with TICVADs were divided into four groups: cut-downs with ultrasonography (group A, n = 112); cut-downs without ultrasonography (group B, n = 37); venous puncture (group C, n = 122); and replacements using the existing catheter (group D, n = 109). Operation time, completion rate, and complications were compared. RESULTS: The average operating time was 41.7, 52.4, and 40.6 min in groups A, B (P < 0.01), and C, respectively. Group A and B experienced no postoperative pneumothorax, arterial puncture, or pinch-off syndrome. Completion rates were 93.7% in group A and 86.5% in group B. Preoperative ultrasonography identified the cephalic vein in 94.1% of subjects with an average diameter of 3.1 mm and depth of 10.2 mm. Identifying convergence of the cephalic vein and the axillary vein improved the completion rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the cephalic vein cut-down approach for TICVAD implantation reduced complications. Preoperative ultrasonography resulted in a shorter operating time and higher completion rate.

The Treatment Results of a Standard Algorithm for Choosing the Best Entry Vessel for Intravenous Port Implantation.

Vascular cutdown and echo guide puncture methods have its own limitations under certain conditions. There was no available algorithm for choosing entry vessel. A standard algorithm was introduced to help choose the entry vessel location according to our clinical experience and review of the literature. The goal of this study is to analyze the treatment results of the standard algorithm used to choose the entry vessel for intravenous port implantation.During the period between March 2012 and March 2013, 507 patients who received intravenous port implantation due to advanced chemotherapy were included into this study. Choice of entry vessel was according to standard algorithm. All clinical characteristic factors were collected and complication rate and incidence were further analyzed.Compared with our clinical experience in 2006, procedure-related complication rate declined from 1.09% to 0.4%, whereas the late complication rate decreased from 19.97% to 3.55%. No more pneumothorax, hematoma, catheter kinking, fractures, and pocket erosion were identified after using the standard algorithm. In alive oncology patients, 98% implanted port could serve a functional vascular access to fit therapeutic needs.This standard algorithm for choosing the best entry vessel is a simple guideline that is easy to follow. The algorithm has excellent efficiency and can minimize complication rates and incidence.

Histological changes of the unligated vein wall adjacent to the central venous catheter after open cutdown in rats.

BACKGROUND: The sequelae of a central venous cutdown usually include venous deformity causing venous stenosis or stricture. However, the cellular mechanisms causing these deformities have not been elucidated. METHODS: Silicone 2.7-Fr catheters were placed via the right external jugular vein of 16 rats with the cutdown method. After fixation with formalin at scheduled intervals (1week, 2weeks, 4weeks, and 8weeks; 4 rats in each group), the vein segment with the catheter in situ was harvested. Histological changes in the vein wall were studied and serially compared with light microscopy; standard hematoxylin-eosin staining, Masson's trichrome staining, van Gieson's elastin stain, and immunohistochemical stain against α-actin. RESULTS: Pericatheter sleeve formation, circumferential smooth muscle cell proliferation and infiltration into the pericatheter sleeve by direct contact were noted in all 4 rats of 1-week model; this indicated the initiation of neointimal hyperplasia. The neointimal hyperplasia was located inside the elastin layer. At 2weeks, the SMCs stained faintly but the components of the vein wall were largely replaced by collagen. The proliferation and infiltration of SMCs stabilized at 4weeks and no SMCs were stained around the catheter. At 8weeks, luminal narrowing was noted and the venous wall was composed mainly of collagen. CONCLUSIONS: Circumferential neointimal hyperplasia occurred after surgical cutdown of the external jugular vein in a rat model and was caused by SMC activation, proliferation, and infiltration into the pericatheter sleeve.

Closed cannulation of subclavian vein vs open cut-down of cephalic vein for totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: protocol for a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND: Totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation is one of the most often performed operations in general surgery (over 100,000/year in Germany). The two main approaches for TIVAP placement are insertion into the cephalic vein through an open cut-down technique (OCD) or closed cannulation technique of the subclavian vein (CC) with Seldinger technique. Both procedures are performed with high success rates and very low complication frequencies. Because of the low incidence of complications, no single interventional trial is able to report a valid comparison of peri- and postoperative complication frequencies between both techniques. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to summarize evidence for peri- and postoperative complication rates in patients undergoing OCD or CC. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic literature search will be conducted in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational clinical studies (OCS), or case series (CS) reporting peri- and/or postoperative complications of at least one implantation technique. A priori defined data will be extracted from included studies, and methodological quality will be assessed. Event rates with their 95% confidence intervals will be derived taking into account the follow-up time per study by patient-months where appropriate. Pooled estimates of event rates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be calculated on the base of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation within a random effect model framework. DISCUSSION: The findings of this systematic review with proportional meta-analysis will help to identify the procedure with the best benefit/risk ratio for TIVAP implantation. This may have influence on daily practice, and data may be implemented in treatment guidelines. Considering the impact of TIVAP implantation on patients' well being together with its socioeconomic relevance, patients will benefit from evidence-based treatment and health-care costs may also be reduced. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013005180.

Low incidence of complications after cephalic vein cutdown for pacemaker lead implantation in children weighing less than 10 kilograms: A single-center experience with long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Only a few studies on the cephalic vein cutdown technique for pacemaker lead implantation in children weighing ≤10 kg have been reported even though the procedure is widely accepted in adults. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prove that cephalic vein cutdown for pacemaker lead implantation is a reliable technique with a low incidence of complications in children weighing ≤10 kg. METHODS: The study included 44 children weighing ≤10 kg with an endocardial pacemaker. Cephalic, subclavian, and axillary vein diameters were measured by ultrasound before implantation. The measured diameters were used to select either an endocardial or epicardial surgical technique. Regular 6-month follow-up visits included pacemaker interrogation and clinical and ultrasound examinations. RESULTS: Two dual-chamber and 42 single-chamber pacemakers were implanted. Mean weight at implantation was 6.24 kg (range 2.25-10.40 kg), and mean age was 11.4 months (range 1 day-47 months). In 40 children (90.1%), the ventricular leads were implanted using the cephalic vein cutdown technique, and implantation was accomplished via the prepared right external jugular vein in 4 of the children (9.9%). The atrial leads were implanted using axillary vein puncture and external jugular vein preparations. Mean follow-up was 8.9 years (range 0-20.9 years). Only 1 pacemaker-related complication was detected (a lead fracture near the connector that was successfully resolved using a lead repair kit). CONCLUSION: The cephalic vein cutdown technique is feasible and reliable in children weighing ≤10 kg, which justifies the application of additional surgical effort in the treatment of these small patients.

Is the liberal use of preoperative 3-dimensional imaging and presternotomy femoral cutdown beneficial in reoperative adult congenital heart surgery?

OBJECTIVE: Patients with congenital heart disease frequently survive into adulthood, and many of them will require repeat surgery. Often, the unique anatomy can make reoperative sternotomy and the conduct of cardiopulmonary bypass challenging. We evaluated the utility of preoperative 3-dimensional imaging and presternotomy femoral cutdown in reoperative adult congenital heart disease surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 205 adult patients, who had undergone reoperative cardiac surgery for congenital heart disease from 2006 to 2011. Using the operative history and 3-dimensional preoperative imaging findings, an algorithm was created to determine whether femoral cutdown or cannulation should be performed before sternal reentry. Analyses were performed to determine the benefits of this strategy. In addition, analyses were performed to identify adverse outcomes related to this strategy. RESULTS: Presternotomy femoral intervention was performed in 112 of 205 patients (55%)-femoral cutdown alone in 69 (34%) and femoral cutdown, cannulation, and institution of cardiopulmonary bypass in 43 (21%). Of the 19 patients (9%) with a cardiac injury, femoral cutdown had already been performed in 17, of whom 10 had also undergone cannulation. Only 2 patients required urgent femoral cutdown or cannulation. A strong correlation was found between the site of injury predicted by the preoperative algorithm and the actual site of cardiac injury (88%). In both univariate and multivariate models, the risk factors for cardiac injury included a history of cardiac injury during sternal reentry (18% vs 1%, P = .0001), proximity of the right ventricular outflow tract to the posterior chest wall (35% vs 14%, P = .04), and increased reoperative sternotomy incidence (P = .01). In 31 patients, despite safe reentry, the femoral vessels were used as a preferential site of venous (n = 6), arterial (n = 9), or venous and arterial cannulation (n = 16) because of anatomic constraints within the chest cavity. Three patients experienced groin complications (pseudoaneurysm, abscess, ischemia) requiring surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac injury during reoperative surgery in adults with congenital heart disease is not uncommon. The preoperative history and imaging findings could be predictive of certain cardiac injury patterns. Using the preoperative history and 3-dimensional imaging findings, a more selective algorithm for presternotomy femoral intervention might be warranted.

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.

Problemas técnicos en el paciente sometido a técnicas de depuración extra renal o técnicas de reemplazo renal continuo (TRRC) / Technical problems in the patients undergoing extrarenal depuration techniques or continuous renal replacement techniques (CRRT)

No disponible

Critical skills and procedures in emergency medicine: vascular access skills and procedures.

The venous and/or arterial vasculature may be accessed for fluid resuscitation, testing and monitoring, administration of blood product or medication, or procedural reasons, such as the implantation of cardiac pacemaker wires. Accessing the vascular system is a common and often critically important step in emergency patient care. This article reviews methods for peripheral, central venous, and arterial access and discusses adjunct skills for vascular access such as the use of ultrasound guidance, and other forms of vascular access such as intraosseus and umbilical cannulation, and peripheral venous cut-down. Mastery of these skills is critical for the emergency medicine provider.

Critical trauma skills and procedures in the emergency department.

Injuries and illness associated with major trauma that require lifesaving procedures, such as surgical airway, chest tube thoracotomy, emergency department thoracotomy, early recognition and treatment of compartment syndrome, and venous cutdown, are seen in the emergency department. The emergency medicine physician must be proficient in recognizing these injuries and their associated complications and be able to provide appropriate management. This article discusses the most common trauma-related procedures in which emergency physicians must be proficient. A description of each procedure is discussed as well as the indications, contraindications, equipment, technique, and potential complications.