Different techniques of venous access for CIEDs: advantages and disadvantages.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. Cardiac implantable electronic device upgrades and downgrades: a Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Association (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Intra-pocket ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture vs. cephalic vein cutdown for cardiac electronic device implantation: the ACCESS trial.2023

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as