Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2023
Axillary vein puncture versus cephalic vein cutdown for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: A meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорМетаанализСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vetta Giampaolo, Magnocavallo Michele, Parlavecchio Antonio, Caminiti Rodolfo, Polselli Marco, Sorgente Antonio, Cauti Filippo Maria, Crea Pasquale, Pannone Luigi, Marcon Lorenzo, Savio Armando Lo, Pistelli Lorenzo, Vetta Francesco, Chierchia Gian-Battista, Rossi Pietro, Bianchi Stefano, Natale Andrea, de Asmundis Carlo, Rocca Domenico G Della
Аннотация
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.
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.