Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
-
J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. · Sep 2019
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyFluoroscopy-guided axillary vein access vs cephalic vein access in pacemaker and defibrillator implantation: Randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety.
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. ⋯ 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.