Perna Francesco, Flore Francesco, Telesca Alessandro, Ruscio Eleonora, Scacciavillani Roberto, Bencardino Gianluigi, Narducci Maria Lucia, Pinnacchio Gaetano, Pelargonio Gemma
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Department of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2025 Jan;48(1):9-20. doi: 10.1111/pace.15107. Epub 2024 Dec 30.
Ultrasound (US)-guided axillary vein puncture is a safe and effective approach for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, and it is highly recommended by the current consensus document. However, only reports on small populations are available in the current literature regarding the comparison of this technique with other traditional approaches (subclavian vein blind puncture and cephalic vein surgical cutdown).
We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of US- guided axillary vein puncture using a microintroducer kit for CIED implantation as compared to the aforementioned traditional approaches.
All consecutive patients with an indication to CIED implantation were prospectively enrolled in our observational study from March 2021 to July 2023. Patients were divided into three groups based on venous access route, according to the operator's preference: cephalic vein surgical cutdown (G1), US-guided axillary vein puncture (G2), and subclavian vein blind puncture (G3). Clinical and procedural characteristics, success and complication rates were considered for analysis.
A total of 1000 patients (65.2% male, mean age 75.5 ± 10.8 years) were enrolled. Cephalic vein surgical cutdown was chosen in 172 (G1, 17.2%), US-guided axillary access in 433 patients (G2, 43.3%), and subclavian vein in 395 (G3, 39.5%). Success rate was 77.6% in G1, 96.3% in G2, and 97.2% in G3 (G2 vs. G3, p = 0.5; G1 vs. G2, p < 0.0001; G1 vs. G2. vs. G3, p < 0.0001). Compared to subclavian and cephalic groups, in the US-guided axillary group, a successful access was obtained with a reduced mean number of puncture attempts (G2 vs. G3: 1.3 ± 0.9 vs. 1.8 ± 1, p < 0.0001) and needed reduced times to get access (G2 vs. G3: 15 s [10-30 s] vs. 40 [20-65 s]; p < 0.0001, G1 vs. G2: 210 s [180-247 s] vs. 15 s [10-30 s]; p < 0.0001) and to reach the superior vena cava, without differences in total procedural times (72.9 ± 30.4 vs. 75.7 ± 34.8 min, p = 0.24). Bailout fluoroscopy times [1 (0-8) s vs. 20 (10-58) s, p < 0.0001] and usage of vein angiography (11.9% vs. 51.3%, p < 0.0001) were lower in G2 as compared to G3. Complication rate did not differ among the three study groups (early complications: 2.9% in G1, 2.5% in G2, and 2.5% in G3, p = 0.96; late complications: 2.9% in G1, 1.6% in G2, and 0.8% in G3, p = 0.15).
US-guided axillary vein puncture for CIED implantation using a microintroducer kit is a safe technique with a very high success rate. Compared to other traditional approaches, it allows to get access with a lower number of puncture attempts and with reduced times, without prolonging the total procedural time. Moreover, x-ray use and need for contrast medium are very rare in US-guided axillary approach. Hence, it should be considered the strategy of choice for most patients undergoing CIED implantation.
超声(US)引导下腋静脉穿刺是心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)植入的一种安全有效的方法,当前的共识文件强烈推荐该方法。然而,目前文献中关于该技术与其他传统方法(锁骨下静脉盲目穿刺和头静脉外科切开)比较的报道仅涉及小样本量人群。
我们旨在评估与上述传统方法相比,使用微穿刺套件进行US引导下腋静脉穿刺用于CIED植入的有效性和安全性。
2021年3月至2023年7月,所有有CIED植入指征的连续患者均前瞻性纳入我们的观察性研究。根据操作者的偏好,患者按静脉入路分为三组:头静脉外科切开组(G1)、US引导下腋静脉穿刺组(G2)和锁骨下静脉盲目穿刺组(G3)。分析临床和操作特征、成功率和并发症发生率。
共纳入1000例患者(男性占65.2%,平均年龄75.5±10.8岁)。172例患者选择头静脉外科切开(G1,17.2%),433例患者选择US引导下腋静脉入路(G2,43.3%),395例患者选择锁骨下静脉入路(G3,39.5%)。G1组成功率为77.6%,G2组为96.3%,G3组为97.2%(G2与G3比较,p = 0.5;G1与G2比较,p < 0.0001;G1与G2与G3比较,p < 0.0001)。与锁骨下静脉组和头静脉组相比,在US引导下腋静脉组,穿刺成功时平均穿刺尝试次数减少(G2与G3:1.3±0.9次对1.8±1次,p < 0.0001),获得入路所需时间减少(G2与G3:15秒[10 - 30秒]对40秒[20 - 65秒];p < 0.0001,G1与G2:210秒[180 - 247秒]对15秒[10 - 30秒];p < 0.0001),到达上腔静脉的时间也减少,总操作时间无差异(72.9± 30.4分钟对75.7± 34.8分钟,p = 0.24)。与G3组相比,G2组的补救性透视时间[1(0 - 8)秒对20(10 - 58)秒,p < 0.0001]和静脉血管造影的使用率(11.9%对51.3%,p < 0.0001)更低。三个研究组的并发症发生率无差异(早期并发症:G1组为2.9%,G2组为2.5%,G3组为2.5%,p = 0.96;晚期并发症:G1组为2.9%,G2组为1.6%,G3组为0.8%,p = 0.15)。
使用微穿刺套件进行US引导下腋静脉穿刺用于CIED植入是一种安全的技术,成功率非常高。与其他传统方法相比,它能以更少的穿刺尝试次数和更短的时间获得入路,且不延长总操作时间。此外,US引导下腋静脉入路中X线使用和造影剂需求非常罕见。因此,对于大多数接受CIED植入的患者,应将其视为首选策略。