ArticleScientific reports2018
Triple lead cephalic versus subclavian vein approach in cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound-guided axillary access outperforms subclavian puncture for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: A network meta-analysis of 130,831 patients.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- Implementation of transcutaneous ultrasound-guided axillary vein access for implantations, revisions and upgrades of cardiac implantable electronic devices in a large tertiary care center.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Longevity and Innovation: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in a 100-Year-Old Patient With Severe Heart Failure-A 4-Year Follow-Up.Case reports in cardiology · 2026Article
- A Case of Bilaterally Inaccessible Subclavian Veins.Cureus · 2024Article
- Safety and Efficiency of Cephalic Vein Puncture by Modified Seldinger Technique Compared to Subclavian Vein Puncture for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.Clinical cardiology · 2024Article
- [Venous access routes for cardiac implantable electronic devices].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2023Article
- Axillary vein access using ultrasound guidance, Venography or Cephalic Cutdown-What is the optimal access technique for insertion of pacing leads?Journal of arrhythmia · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation is associated with severe complications including pneumo- and hemothorax. Data on a sole cephalic vein approach (sCV), potentially preventing these complications, are limited. The aim of our study was to compare a sole cSV with a subclavian vein approach (SV) in CRT implantations with respect to feasibility and safety. We performed a prospective cohort study enrolling twenty-four consecutive de-novo CRT implantations (group A) using a sCV at two centers. Fifty-four age-matched CRT patients implanted via the SV served (group B) as reference. Procedural success rate and complications were recorded during a follow-up of 4 weeks. All CRTs could be implanted in group A, with 91.7% using cephalic access alone. In group B, CRT implantation was successfully performed in 96.3%. Procedure and fluoroscopy duration were similar for both groups (sCV vs. SV: 119 ± 45 vs. 106 ± 31 minutes, 17 ± 9 vs 14 ± 9 minutes). Radiation dosage was higher in sCV group vs. SV (2984 ± 2370 vs. 1580 ± 1316 cGy*cm
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.