ReviewJournal of arrhythmia2021
Axillary vein access using ultrasound guidance, Venography or Cephalic Cutdown-What is the optimal access technique for insertion of pacing leads?
Review in Journal of arrhythmia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcome of Ultrasound-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Versus Cephalic Cutdown Permanent Pacemaker Implantation.Cureus · 2026Article
- [Angiology in rhythmology: What should I know about vascular complications?]Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2025Review
- [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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We reviewed the different approaches used for central vein access during insertion of cardiac implantable electronic devices. The benefits and hazards of each approach (cephalic vein cutdown, axillary vein cannulation using venography and ultrasound) are discussed. Each approach has its advantages and hazards that need to be considered for the individual patient and balanced against the skills of the operator. The benefits of ultrasound guided venous access in reducing radiation exposure to the patient and implanter, avoiding the need for angiographic contrast and in minimizing the risk of pneumothorax and inadvertent arterial puncture are highlighted. Trainees should be taught each approach to deal with patient variability. Ultrasound guidance should be considered as a mainstream option for most patients.
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.