Multi-lead cephalic venous access and long-term performance of high-voltage leads

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.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead performance: A systematic review and individual patient data Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reliable post-approval surveillance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead performance remains a challenge. In the past, two ICD leads were recalled due to a high frequency of failures. In this meta-analysis, we sought to provide a combined estimate of failure-free rate for ICD leads by reconstructing individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and to investigate whether estimates could be influenced by the characteristics of the study.

METHODS

Observational studies assessing failure-free estimates of transvenous ICD leads with KM method, were identified through a systematic search up to November 2021.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were eligible that included 41,870 (63.1%) non-recalled leads and 24,493 (36.9%) recalled leads. The 8-year cumulative failure-free rate was 94.1% (CI, 93.6% - 94.6%) for contemporary non-recalled leads and 81.2% (80.3% - 82.0%) for recalled leads (hazard ratio [HR], 3.15 [2.85-3.47], p < 0.001). Failure-free rate was lower in single-center studies in both the non-recalled (HR, 0.28 [0.15-0.51], p < 0.001) and recalled (HR, 0.54 [0.33-0.88], p = 0.014) group compared with multicenter studies. Similarly, estimates were significantly lower in small (i.e. extracted KM curve with <312 leads) versus large studies (HR non-recalled group, 0.54 [CI, 0.33-0.89], p = 0.015; HR recalled group, 0.62 [CI, 0.43-0.89], p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis including >66,000 leads, we provide pooled survival curves that may play a role in generating evidence-based standards for assessing clinically acceptable failure rates for ICD leads. Lead performance was underestimated with single-center and small-sized studies; multicenter studies remain the main tool to reliably conduct post-market surveillance of ICD leads.

Different venous approaches for implantation of cardiac electronic devices. A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Many of the complications arising from cardiac device implantation are associated to the venous access used for lead placement. Previous analyses reported that cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) is safer but less effective than subclavian vein puncture (SVP). However, comparisons between these techniques and axillary vein puncture (AVP) -guided either by ultrasound or fluoroscopy- are lacking. Thus, we aimed to compare safety and efficacy of these approaches.

METHODS

We searched for articles assessing at least two different approaches regarding the incidence of pneumothorax and/ or lead failure (LF). When available, bleeding and infectious complications as well as procedural success were analyzed. A frequentist random effects network meta-analysis model was adopted.

RESULTS

36 studies were analyzed. Most articles assessed SVP versus CVC. Compared to SVP, both CVC and AVP were associated with reduced odds of pneumothorax (OR: 0.193, 95%CI: 0.136-0.275 and OR: 0.128, 95%CI: 0.050- 0.329; respectively) and LF (OR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.406-0.976 and OR: 0.425, 95%CI: 0.286-0.632; respectively). No significant differences between AVP and CVC were demonstrated. Limited data suggest no major impact of different approaches on infectious and bleeding complications. Initial CVC approach required significantly more often an alternate/ additional venous access for lead placement, compared to both AVP and SVP. No differences between these two were identified.

CONCLUSION

Both AVP and CVC seem to decrease incident pneumothorax and LF, compared to SVP. Initial AVP approach seems to decrease the need of alternate venous access, compared to CVC. These results suggest that AVP should be further clinically tested. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Anatomical variations in Coronary Venous Drainage: Challenges and Solutions in Delivering Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

AIMS

To investigate the abnormalities of the coronary venous system in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and describe methods for circumventing the resulting difficulties.

METHODS

From 4 implanting institutes, data of all CRT implants between October 2008-October 2020 were screened for abnormal cardiac venous anatomy, defined as an anatomical variation not conforming to the accepted 'normal' anatomy. Patient demographics, procedural detail and subsequent left ventricle (LV) lead pacing indices were collected.

RESULTS

From a total of 3548 CRT implants, 15 (0.42%) patients (80% male) of 72.2±10.6 years in age with a LV ejection fraction of 34±10.3% were identified to have had an abnormal cardiac venous anatomy over the study period. There were 13 cases of persistent left side superior vena cava (pLSVC), 5 of which had coronary sinus ostium atresia (CSOA) including 2 with an 'unroofed' coronary sinus (CS); 1 patient had a unique anomalous origin of the CS and 1 patient had an isolated CSOA. In total 14 patients (60% repeat attempt) had successful percutaneous implant under general anaesthesia (46.7%) via the cephalic vein (59.1%), using the femoral approach (53.3%) for levophase venography and/or pull-through, including 1 case of endocardial LV implant. Pacing follow-up over 37.64±37.6 months demonstrated LV lead threshold between 0.62-2.9 volts (pulsewidth 0.4-1.5 milliseconds) in all cases; 5 patients died within 2.92±1.6 years of successful implant.

CONCLUSION

CRT devices can be implanted percutaneously even in the presence of substantial abnormalities of coronary venous anatomy. Alternative routes of venous access may be required. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.