Contrast venography vs. microwire assisted axillary venipuncture for cardiovascular implantable electronic device implantation.

AIMS

This study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of microwire assisted technique with contrast venography guided axillary venipuncture in patients undergoing cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective randomized study included 212 consecutive adult patients undergoing CIED implantation at our institute between 2013 and 2015. Patients were randomized to either venography guided technique (Group I; n = 105) or microwire assisted technique (Group II; n = 107) for axillary venipuncture. In Group I axillary venogram was used as a roadmap for guiding the puncture. In Group II, a 0.014 inch hydrophilic coronary guidewire ('microwire') was introduced through the ipsilateral antecubital vein and puncture needle was aimed to hit the microwire over the first or second rib. Outcome measures including technical success rates; number of attempts to successful puncture; puncture duration; fluoroscopy times and adverse events were compared in the two groups. Overall success rates were similar in both groups (97.4% in Group I and 100% in Group II, P = 0.061). We demonstrated significantly higher first attempt success rates; shorter puncture durations and fluoroscopy times; and lower number of attempts to successful puncture with microwire assisted technique (89.3% vs. 65.6%; 36.7 ± 23.1 s vs. 67.8 ± 44.9 s; 62.4 ± 35.3 s vs. 118.9 ± 63.2 s; and 1.21 ± 0.82 vs. 2.16 ± 1.54 respectively, P < 0.001). Adverse event rates were significantly lower with microwire assisted technique (0.9% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Microwire assisted technique is a simple, quicker, safer and more efficacious alternative to contrast venography guided axillary venipuncture.