ArticleClinical cardiology2023
Temporary pacemaker implantation via median cubital vein: A simple safe and effective technique.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and safety of right heart catheterization via median cubital vein in patients with pulmonary hypertension.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Temporary pacemaker implantation via median cubital vein: A simple safe and effective technique.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTemporary cardiac pacemaker implantation (PM) via the femoral and subclavian veins is widely used in clinics to treat patients with severe bradycardia or tachycardia, but it is technically challenging and potentially associated with various complications. HYPOTHESIS: This study investigated the feasibility and safety of a novel method of PM implantation via the median cubital vein.
methodsA total of 279 patients of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University between March 2020 and December 2021 who required no-emergency PM implantation were enrolled. The patients were divided into three groups based on the temporary PM implantation routes: F-control (n = 107), via the femoral vein; S-control (n = 67), via the subclavian vein, and N-group (n = 105), via the median cubital vein. The sheath placement time (SPT), electrode placement time (EPT), electrode arrival rate (EAR), rate of sensing and pacing (RSP), radiation quantity (RD), electrode dislocation rate (EDR) and average electrode retention time (AERT) were recorded and evaluated. In addition, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) were used to evaluate the comfort levels of patients in the three groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the groups with regard to age, EAR, RSP, EPT, RD, and AERT (p > 0.05). However, the N-group had significantly lower SPT than the F-control and S-control groups (67.0 ± 22.0 s vs. 321.7 ± 122.2 s and 307.3 ± 128.5 s, p = 0.000). Additionally, the F-control had significantly higher EDR than the S-control group and the N-group (11 (10.3%) vs. 2 (3.0%) and 3 (2.9%), p = 0.036). Besides, comparison of the HAMA and SDS scores before and after PM implantation showed significant differences in the S-control group (p = 0.010) and the N-group (p = 0.000).
conclusionsTemporary PM implantation via the median cubital vein is safe, effective, and less time-consuming.
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.