• Ngai-Yin Chan, Nim-Pong Kwong, and Adrian-Piers Cheong.
• Princess Margaret Hospital, 2-10 Princess Margaret Hospital Road, Lai Chi Kok, Kowloon, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
• Europace. 2017 Jul 1; 19 (7): 1193-1197.

AimsExisting 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 ResultsThe 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).ConclusionCompared 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.Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2016. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

38 keywords...

hide…