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.

Association of infraclavicular axillary vein diameter and collapsibility index with general anesthesia-induced hypotension in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The collapse index of inferior Vena Cava (IVC) and its diameter are important predictive tools for fluid responsiveness in patients, especially critically ones. The collapsibility of infraclavicular axillary vein (AXV) can be used as an alternative to the collapsibility of IVC (IVC-CI) to assess the patient's blood volume. METHODS: A total of 188 elderly patients aged between 65 and 85 years were recruited for gastrointestinal surgery under general anesthesia. Ultrasound measurements AXV and IVC were performed before induction of general anesthesia. Patients were grouped in accordance to the hypotension after induction. ROC curves were used to analyze the predictive value of ultrasound measurements of AXV and IVC for hypotension after induction of anesthesia. Pearson linear correlation was used to assess the correlation of ultrasound measurements and decrease in mean arterial blood pressure (MAP). RESULTS: The maximum diameter of AXV(dAXVmax) and the maximum diameter of IVC (dIVCmax) were not related to the percentage decrease in MAP; the collapsibility of AXV (AXV-CI) and IVC-CI were positively correlated with MAP changes (correlation coefficients:0.475, 0.577, respectively, p < 0.001). The areas under the curve (AUC) was 0.824 (0.759-0.889) for AXV-CI, and 0.874 (0.820-0.928) for IVC-CI. The optimal threshold for AXV-CI was 31.25% (sensitivity 71.7%, specificity 90.1%), while for IVC-CI was 36.60% (sensitivity 85.9%, specificity 79.0%). Hypotension and down-regulation of MAP during induction can be accurately predicted by AXV-Cl after correction for confounding variables. CONCLUSION: Infraclavicular axillary vein diameter has no significant correlation with postanesthesia hypotension, whereas AXV-CI may predict postanesthesia hypotension during gastrointestinal surgery of the elderly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Clinical Trial Registry of China on 05/06/2022 (ChiCTR2200060596).

High success rates of ultrasound-guided distal internal jugular vein and axillary vein approaches for central venous catheterization: A randomized controlled open-label pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US)-guided axillary vein (AV) catheterization has been considered as the preferred site of insertion to minimize catheter-related infections. Given its difficulty of realization, internal jugular vein (IJV) access remains, thus, the first choice of catheter insertion site. This descriptive study was aimed to assess the success and complication rates of in-plane short axis approach of IJV in the lower neck and the AV approach under US-guidance. METHODS: In a prospective randomized controlled open-label pilot trial, all patients requiring central venous catheterization (CVC) in intensive care unit or operating room were randomly assigned to low IJV or AV groups. The primary objective was to estimate the overall success rate of both approaches. The secondary objectives were immediate complication rates, procedure durations, success rate after the first puncture, late complication rates (i.e., thrombosis, catheter colonization, and catheter-related infections), and nurse satisfaction regarding insertion site dressings. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three out of two hundred and ten included patients were fully analyzed (90 and 83 in the IJV and AV approach groups, respectively). Overall success rates for IJV and AV sites were 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) [90-99]) and 89% (95% CI [81-94]) respectively. First puncture success rates were 90% and 80% respectively. The median overall procedure duration from US pre-procedural screening to guidewire insertion was 8 and 10 min in IJV and AV groups. Overall immediate complications rates for IJV and AV sites were 11.6% and 14.6%, respectively. Incidence of catheter colonization were 7.9% and 6.8% and catheter-related infection rate were 2.6% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, US-guided low IJV and AV approaches are safe and efficient techniques for CVC insertion associated with high success and low complications rates. Duration for guidewire insertion seemed to be shorter in the short axis in-plane IJV approach. It provides the basis for a future randomized trial comparing these two approaches.

Precise Terminology and Specified Catheter Insertion Length in Ultrasound-Guided Infraclavicular Central Vein Catheterization.

Background and Objectives: As the latest research encourages the ultrasound-guided infraclavicular central venous approach, due to the lateral puncture site displacement, in comparison to the anatomical landmark technique based on subclavian vein catheterization, the need to re-calculate the optimal catheter insertion length and possibly to rename the punctuated vessel emerges. Although naming a particular anatomical structure is a nomenclature issue, a suboptimal catheter position can be associated with multiple life-threatening complications and must be avoided. The main study objective is to determine the optimal catheter insertion length by the most proximal ultrasound-guided, in-plane infraclavicular central vein approach, to compare results with the anatomical landmark technique based on subclavian vein catheterization and to clarify the punctuated anatomical structure. Materials and Methods: 109 patients were enrolled in this study. All procedures were performed according to the same catheterization protocol. In order to determine optimal insertion length, chest X-ray scans with an existing catheter were performed. The definition of punctuated vessel was based on computer tomography and evaluated by radiologists. Independent predictors for optimal insertion length were identified, prediction equations were generated. Results: The optimal catheter insertion length is approximately 1.5 cm longer than estimated by Pere's formula and can be accurately calculated based on anthropometric data. Computed tomography revealed: five cases with subclavian vein puncture and three cases with axillary vein puncture. Conclusions: Even the most proximal ultrasound-guided infraclavicular central vein access does not guarantee subclavian vein catheterization. A more accurate term could be infraclavicular central venous access, with the implication that the entry point could be through either subclavian or axillary veins. The optimal insertion length is approximately 1.5 cm deeper than the length determined for the anatomical landmark technique based on subclavian vein catheterization.

Determination of the optimal length of insertion for central venous catheterization via axillary vein cannulation using preoperative chest X-ray- A prospective feasibility study.

Background and Aims: Ensuring safe central venous catheter tip placement is important. Multiple techniques are available to estimate the length of catheter insertion for subclavian and internal jugular approaches. However, the methods to determine the length of insertion for the axillary route have not been validated. The purpose of this feasibility study was to evaluate a simple method for the calculation of catheter length to be inserted and assess whether it accurately predicts the correct tip placement. Material and Methods: A total of 102 patients requiring preoperative central venous cannulation were evaluated, out of which 60 had successful axillary vein (AxV) cannulation. The length of insertion was calculated using the formula: (2/3* A + B) +Y (A: Clavicular length on chest radiograph [CXR], B: Vertical distance between the sternal head and carina on CXR, Y: Perpendicular distance from the skin to the AxV on ultrasound). A postoperative CXR was used to assess the accurate tip placement (2 cm above the carina to 0.5 cm below it). The primary outcome of the study was the rate of successful placement of the central venous catheter (CVC) in terms of the correct position of the tip of the catheter when the length of the catheter inserted was predicted by the formula described previously. Results: Optimal placement was observed in 83.33% of the cases. A higher rate of accuracy was seen in the females (P value = 0.03) and shorter patients (P value = 0.01). A Bland-Altman plot depicted a high degree of agreement. Conclusion: Use of the formula using a CXR and ultrasound allowed P successful placement of the CVC tip at the desired location in 83.33% of the cases.

The Use of a Handheld Ultrasound Device to Guide the Axillary Vein Access during Pacemaker and Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation. A Feasibility Study.

Background: Although ultrasound guidance for axillary vein (AV) access (USGAVA) has been described as a reliable technique for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, no data is available on the use of handheld ultrasound devices (HUD) in such a setting. Objective: We investigated the feasibility of using a HUD for USGAVA in patients referred to our Institution for CIED implantation. Methods: The procedure details of 80 consecutive patients undergoing USGAVA (Group-1) from June 2020 to June 2021 were prospectively collected and compared to those of an age and sex-matched cohort of 91 patients (Group-2) who had undergone AV access with the traditional venipuncture guided by fluoroscopic landmarks. Results: The two groups were comparable for the success rate of venous access (92.5% versus 93.4%, p = 0.82), complication rate (1.3% versus 0.9%, p = 1.0), and procedure time (71 ± 32 min versus 70 ± 29 min, p = 0.9). However, Group-2 had a longer X-ray exposure time (7.6 ± 8.4 min versus 5.7 ± 7.3 min, p = 0.03). In Group-1, the univariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the AV diameter was associated with successful USGAVA (odds ratio = 3.34, 95% confidence interval 1.47-7.59, p < 0.01), with a 3-fold increase of probability of success per each 1 mm increase in the AV diameter. Conclusions: USGAVA using a HUD for CIED implantation is a feasible, effective, and safe technique; moreover, it saves X-ray exposure time without lengthening the implant procedure time.

Comparison of comfort and complications of Implantable Venous Access Port (IVAP) with ultrasound guided Internal Jugular Vein (IJV) and Axillary Vein/Subclavian Vein (AxV/SCV) puncture in breast cancer patients: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Axillary vein/subclavian vein (AxV/SCV) and Internal jugular vein (IJV) are commonly used for implantable venous access port (IVAP) implantation in breast cancer patients for chemotherapy. Previous research focused on comparison of complications while patient comfort was ignored. This study aims to compare patient comfort, surgery duration and complications of IVAP implantation between IJV and AxV/SCV approaches. METHODS: Two hundred forty-eight breast cancer patients were enrolled in this randomized controlled study from August 2020 to June 2021. Patients scheduled to undergo IVAP implantation were randomly and equally assigned to receive central venous catheters with either AxV /SCV or IJV approaches. All patients received comfort assessment using a comfort scale table at day 1, day 2 and day 7 after implantation. Patient comfort, procedure time of operation as well as early complications were compared. RESULTS: Patient comfort was significantly better in the AxV/SCV group than that of IJV group in day 1 (P < 0.001), day 2 (P < 0.001) and day 7(P = 0.023). Procedure duration in AxV/SCV group was slightly but significantly shorter than IJV group (27.14 ± 3.29 mins vs 28.92 ± 2.54 mins, P < 0.001). More early complications occurred in AxV/SCV group than IJV group (11/124 vs 2/124, P = 0.019). No difference of complications of artery puncture, pneumothorax or subcutaneous hematoma between these two groups but significantly more catheter misplacement in AxV/SCV group than IJV group (6/124 vs 0/124, P = 0.029). Absolutely total risk of complications was rather low in both groups (8.87% in AxV/SCV group and 1.61% in IJV group). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that patients with AxV/SCV puncture have higher comfort levels than IJV puncture. AxV/SCV puncture has shorter procedure duration but higher risk of early complications, especially catheter misplacement. Both these two approaches have rather low risk of complications. Consequently, our study provides an alternative choice for breast cancer patients to reach better comfort.

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.

Axillary vein thrombosis 30 h after caesarean section: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Axillary vein thrombosis is a very rare disorder. However, a case of axillary vein thrombosis shortly after caesarean section has not been reported previously. We report a case of axillary vein thrombosis 30 h after caesarean section due to an unidentified aetiology. CASE: A 37-year-old multiparous woman developed swelling and pain of the forearm and hand 30 h after undergoing a caesarean section. Doppler ultrasonography revealed a 14.9 mm × 5.3 mm thrombosis in the left axillary vein although a prophylaxis of anticoagulation was administrated. After an adjusted-dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was administered, the patient recovered and was discharged. CONCLUSION: Obstetricians should be fully aware of the possibility of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) despite its rarity, especially after the surgery. Lying in the lateral decubitus position for long periods postoperatively should be avoided as much as possible.

A new method for localizing the landmark of axillary vein and its application.

BACKGROUND: Axillary vein puncture is a popular puncture site for pacemaker implantation. However, due to the lacking of body surface markers, the current puncture method is too complicated and affect the popularization and application of axillary vein puncture. Here, we performed a new body surface landmark to make the blind axillary vein puncture simple and easy. METHODS: The study population included 30 patients referred for pacemaker implantation using axillary vein puncture. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) was used to determine the direction and the surface landmarks of the axillary vein. Medial cusp of thoracic triangle and the coracoid process were directly touched with fingers. The puncture point was about 1 cm below the coracoid, and the needle tip pointed to the medial cusp of thoracic triangle with the angle of 30-60°. RESULTS: There was little variation in distribution of axillary vein. The body surface landmark of the junction of the axillary vein and the subclavian vein is on the medial cusp of thoracic triangle. In these 30 patients, blind axillary vein puncture was successful obtained in all patients. There was no pneumothorax and inadvertent arterial puncture. The pacemaker lead wire was placed smoothly. Moreover, the pacemaker pocket was ideally positioned when cut along the puncture point. CONCLUSIONS: Blind axillary vein access using the body surface landmark of the thoracic triangle is an effective method for pacemaker implantation and can obvious avoid the complications usually observed with the traditional subclavian vein approach.

Ultrasound guided axillary vein access: An alternative approach to venous access for cardiac device implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound guided axillary vein access (UGAVA) is an emerging approach for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation not widely utilized. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a retrospective, age and sex-matched cohort study of CIED implantation from January 2017 to July 2019 comparing UGAVA before incision to venous access obtained after incision without ultrasound (conventional). The study population included 561 patients (187 with attempted UGAVA, 68 ± 13 years old, 43% women, body mass index (BMI) 30 ± 8 kg/m2 , 15% right-sided, 43% implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 15% upgrades). UGAVA was successful in 178/187 patients (95%). In nine patients where UGAVA was abandoned, the vein was too deep for access before incision. BMI was higher in abandoned patients than successful UGAVA (38 ± 6 vs. 28 ± 6 kg/m2 , p < .0001). Median time from local anesthetic to completion of UGAVA was 7 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 4-10) and median procedure time 61 min (IQR: 50-92). UGAVA changed implant laterality in two patients (avoiding an extra incision in both) and could have prevented unnecessary incision in four conventional patients. Excluding device upgrades, there was reduced fluoroscopy time in UGAVA versus conventional (4 vs. 6 min; IQR: 2-5 vs. 4-9; p < .001). Thirty-day complications were similar in UGAVA versus conventional (n = 7 vs. 26, 4 vs. 7%; p = .13, p = .41 adjusting for upgrades), partly driven by a trend towards reduced pneumothorax (n = 0 vs. 3, 0 vs. 1%; p = .22). CONCLUSIONS: UGAVA is a safe approach for CIED implantation and helps prevent an extra incision if a barrier is identified changing laterality preincision.

Axillary vein access for permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: Fluoroscopy compared to ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Axillary vein access (AVA) using fluoroscopic landmarks is an effective and safe approach for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantation. However, it may result in a higher radiation exposure. Ultrasound-guided axillary access (USAA) is an effective alternative technique to conventional subclavian access for CIEDs implantation. Studies comparing USAA and AVA using fluoroscopic landmarks are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy, and radiation exposure data of the USAA approach with the AVA using fluoroscopic landmarks. METHODS: The study population included 95 consecutive patients (61% male, median age 78 years [71-85 years]) referred for CIEDs implantation using AVA with fluoroscopic landmark (n = 46) or USAA (n = 49). Baseline characteristics and radiation exposure data (Air-Kerma [mGy], DAP [Gy-cm2 ], fluoroscopy time [seconds], and X-rays emission time [seconds]) were compared according to the technique used for the AVA. RESULTS: Axillary vein was successfully accessed in 45 of 49 (92%) patients using ultrasound and in 42 of 46 (91%) patients using fluoroscopic landmarks (P = 1.00). Air-Kerma, DAP, fluoroscopy time, and X-rays emission time were shorter for USAA group compared with AVA using fluoroscopic landmarks (11 mGy [8-20] vs 37 mGy [24-81], P < .00001; 3 Gy-cm2 [2-5] vs 10 Gy-cm2 [6-16], P < .00001; 97 seconds [62-163] vs 271 seconds [185-365], P < .00001; and 7 seconds [4-10] vs 21 seconds [13-39], P < .00001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in median implant procedure time (P = .55). We did not encounter any acute or long-term complications in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided axillary vein cannulation for CIEDs implantation is a feasible and safe alternative approach and offers a significant reduction in fluoroscopy times without increasing procedural time.

Predictors of successful ultrasound-guided lead implantation.

BACKGROUND: Technical advances have improved the safety of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) insertion, but periprocedural complications persist. Despite ultrasound (US) guidance for vascular access being feasible and exhibiting shorter fluoroscopy times, it is not widely adopted for insertion of CIEDs. Thus, we studied the use of US for CIED insertion to (1) quantify the success rate of venous cannulation, (2) identify predictors of failed cannulation, and (3) quantify the rate of complications using US guidance. METHODS: We studied 166 consecutive patients who underwent US-guided CIED implantation. Anatomic parameters of the axillary vein were measured. The primary outcome was success (group 1) or failure (group 2) to obtain vascular access utilizing US guidance. Secondary outcomes included pneumothorax and hematoma. RESULTS: Successful US-guided cannulation occurred in 154 of 166 patients (93%). No patient had a pneumothorax. Hematoma occurred in 1 of 166 patients (0.01%). Group 2 exhibited higher male proportion at 11 of 12 (92%) compared with 94 of 154 (61%) in group 1 (P = .03), increased vein depth at 3.84 versus 2.85 cm (P = .003), more right-sided implants (P = .03), higher weight at 104.6 versus 85.3 kg (P = .017), higher body mass index at 35.6 versus 29.2 kg/m2 (P = .049), and higher body surface area at 2.24 versus 1.99 m2 (P = .013). Other parameters were statistically nonsignificant. In multivariate analysis, vein depth remained significantly associated with failure. CONCLUSION: Using US guidance for CIED implantation is successful in the vast majority (93%) of patients. Rare cases of unsuccessful cannulation were associated with right-sided implants and increased venous depth.

Fluoroscopy-guided axillary vein access vs cephalic vein access in pacemaker and defibrillator implantation: Randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety.

INTRODUCTION: The most widespread venous sites of access for implantation intravenous implantable cardiac electronic device (CIED) are the cephalic and subclavian vein. Fluoroscopy-guided axillary venous access is an alternative, but efficacy and safety have not been studied under equal conditions. The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy and safety of fluoroscopy-guided axillary vs cephalic vein access in CIED implant. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and forty patients were randomized to receive CIED implantation by the fluoroscopy-guided axillary vein access vs cephalic vein access. The implantation success, the procedure times and the complications were recorded. A comparison of the results of operators was made. The success rate of the randomized venous access was superior in the axillary group than in cephalic (98.3% vs 76.7%, P < .001). Time to access (6.8 ± 3.1 minute vs 13.1 ± 5.8 minutes, P < .001) and implantation duration was significantly shorter in the axillary group than in the cephalic group (42.3 ± 11.6 minutes vs 50.5 ± 13.3 minutes, P < .001). There was no difference in the incidence of complication and inter-operator success rate, complications rate and time to access. CONCLUSION: The fluoroscopy-guided axillary venous access is safe and has a better success rate and faster execution time compared with the cephalic vein access. When the results were compared among the study operators, neither in the axillary nor in the cephalic group there were differences in the success rate, the complication rate, and the time to access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03860090.

Ultrasound-guided combined pectoral nerve block and axillary venipuncture for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices.

BACKGROUND: Combined ultrasound (US)-guided pectoral nerves (PECS) block and axillary vein (AV) puncture for cardiac implantable electronic devices can be effective to achieve optimal perioperative pain management and prevent access-related complications. METHODS: A total of 36 patients who underwent combined US-guided PECS block and AV puncture were included. All routinely recorded parameters, including clinical and demographic characteristics, periprocedural medical administrations, the time taken for both PECS block and AV puncture, procedure time, postprocedural pain score, and procedure-related complications, were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 54 leads were placed in 36 patients. The combined US-guided PECS block and AV puncture was performed successfully in 35 (97.2%) patients without the need for fluoroscopy or venography. AV access for each lead was achieved in a single attempt in 80.6% of cases. The time for both PECS block and AV puncture was 223.6 ± 52.1 s, including the time to apply incision site anesthesia. Additional sedatives and/or local anesthetics were required in two patients during procedure. Visual analog scale average of the patients in the 1st, 6th, and 24th h was 3.7 ± 1.14. 1.61 ± 1.29, and 0.08 ± 0.28, respectively. After the procedure, four patients (three of them woman) needed analgesics. There were no venous access-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: This new combined technique maintains both surgical and postoperative analgesia and prevents vascular access-related complications without significant increase on procedure time.

[Feasibility and safety of new "blind" axillary vein puncture technique in pacemaker implantation].

Objective: To explore the feasibility and safety of a newly developed simple and rapid axillary vein puncture technique based on the surface landmarks for pacemaker implantation. Methods: From January to November 2018, we enrolled 110 patients who underwent pacemaker implantation in Beijing Anzhen Hospital. Basic clinical characteristics, such as gender, age, major diagnosis, type of pacemaker, and His-purkinje system pacing, were collected. The success rate of this axillary vein puncture technique, complications, and technical parameters of present puncture method were analyzed. Results: There were 58 (52.7%) male patients in this cohort and the average aged was (70.26±10.45) years old. This "blind" axillary vein puncture method was successful in 105 out of 110 patients (95.5%). The relevant puncture-related parameters included: the distance between points "a and b" was (3.89±0.40) cm, the first angle α was (25.84±5.54)° and the second angle ß was (66.18±10.26)°. There were no puncture-related complications, such as hematoma, pneumothorax and hemothorax. Conclusion: The new "blind" axillary vein puncture approach is a simple, effective and safe technique for pacemaker implantation, which is easy to learn and practice and suitable for promotion.

Extrathoracic subclavian-axillary vein location and morphological features over the first rib for pacemaker and defibrillator lead implantation.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe the variations of extrathoracic subclavian-axillary vein location and its morphology over the first rib by venography in order to facilitate venous puncture using fluoroscopic landmarks without contrast venography, and evaluate the success rate of punctures, which is made with our method. METHODS: Patients who had undergone de novo lead implantation with the help of prepuncture venography between 2011 and 2015 were enrolled. For detection of the segmental location of the axillary vein, the zones were defined (Zone 1: Posterior, Zone 2: Lateral, Zone 3: Medial) at the first rib by fluoroscopy. Additionally, patients, who underwent venous puncture with our method after January 2017, were evaluated in terms of puncture success. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-three patients who had prepuncture contrast venography for defibrillator or pacemaker lead implantation in 2011-2015 were analyzed. The most common position of the axillary vein was found to be over zone 2 (91%) while the zone 1 location was 8.5% and the zone 3 was 0.5%. Venous valves were detected on the first rib in 98 patients. After January 2017, venous puncture using fluoroscopic landmarks was performed to 171 patients. The punctures were successfully performed over zone 2 with our method in 90.7% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The most common radioanatomic position of the extrathoracic subclavian-axillary vein was observed at zone 2 according to our method and the probability of presence of venous valve over the first rib is 22%. Additionally, the success rate of puncture using fluoroscopic landmarks over zone 2 was 90.7%.

Outcomes following operative management of thoracic outlet syndrome in the pediatric patients.

Objectives Thoracic outlet syndrome, a condition commonly reported in adults, occurs infrequently in the pediatric population. The objective of this study was to assess the outcome of surgical interventions of thoracic outlet syndrome in pediatric patients. Methods Clinical records of all pediatric patients with thoracic outlet syndrome who underwent operative repair from 2002 to 2015 in a tertiary pediatric hospital were reviewed. Pertinent clinical variables and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Results Sixty-eight patients underwent a total of 72 thoracic outlet syndrome operations (mean age 15.7 years). Venous, neurogenic, and arterial thoracic outlet syndromes occurred in 39 (57%), 21 (31%), and 8 (12%) patients, respectively. Common risk factors for children with venous thoracic outlet syndrome included sports-related injuries (40%) and hypercoagulable disorders (33%). Thirty-five patients (90%) with venous thoracic outlet syndrome underwent catheter-based interventions followed by surgical decompression. All patients underwent first rib resection with scalenectomy via either a supraclavicular approach (n = 60, 88%) or combined supraclavicular and infraclavicular incisions (n = 8, 12%). Concomitant temporary arteriovenous fistula creation was performed in 14 patients (36%). Three patients with arterial thoracic outlet syndrome underwent first rib resection with concomitant subclavian artery aneurysm repair. The mean follow-up duration was 38.4 ± 11.6 months. Long-term symptomatic relief was achieved in 94% of patients. Conclusions Venous thoracic outlet syndrome is the most common form of thoracic outlet syndrome in children, followed by neurogenic and arterial thoracic outlet syndromes. Competitive sports-related injuries remain the most common risk factor for venous and neurogenic thoracic outlet syndromes. Temporary arteriovenous fistula creation was useful in venous thoracic outlet syndrome patients in selective children. Surgical decompression provides durable treatment success in children with all subtypes of thoracic outlet syndrome.

Self-taught axillary vein access without venography for pacemaker implantation: prospective randomized comparison with the cephalic vein access.

AIM: Axillary vein access for pacemaker implantation is uncommon in many centres because of the lack of training in this technique. We assessed whether the introduction of the axillary vein technique was safe and efficient as compared with cephalic vein access, in a centre where no operators had any previous experience in axillary vein puncture. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing pacemaker implantation were randomized to axillary or cephalic vein access. All three operators had no experience nor training in axillary vein puncture, and self-learned the technique by reading a published review. Axillary vein puncture was fluoroscopy-guided without contrast venography. Cephalic access was performed by dissection of delto-pectoral groove. Venous access success, venous access duration (from skin incision to guidewire or lead in superior vena cava), procedure duration, X-ray exposure, and peri-procedural (1 month) complications were recorded. results We randomized 74 consecutive patients to axillary (n = 37) or cephalic vein access (n = 37). Axillary vein was successfully accessed in 30/37 (81.1%) patients vs. 28/37 (75.7%) of cephalic veins (P = 0.57). Venous access time was shorter in axillary group than in cephalic group [5.7 (4.4-8.3) vs. 12.2 (10.5-14.8) min, P < 0.001], as well as procedure duration [34.8 (30.6-38.4) vs. 42.0 (39.1-46.6) min, P = 0.043]. X-ray exposure and peri-procedural overall complications were comparable in both groups. Axillary puncture was safe and faster than cephalic access even for the five first procedures performed by each operator. CONCLUSION: Self-taught axillary vein puncture for pacemaker implantation seems immediately safe and faster than cephalic vein access, when performed by electrophysiologists trained to pacemaker implantation but not to axillary vein puncture.