ArticleClinical cardiology2024
Safety and Efficiency of Cephalic Vein Puncture by Modified Seldinger Technique Compared to Subclavian Vein Puncture for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2024. 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.
- 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
- Cephalic Vein Puncture in CIED Implantation: The Emerging Standard and Its Clinical Implications.Clinical cardiology · 2024Article
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
Abstract
introductionThe establishment of venous access is one of the driving factors for complications during implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators (cardiac implantable electronic devices [CIED]). Recently, a novel approach of accessing the cephalic vein for CIED by cephalic vein puncture (CVP) using a modified Seldinger technique has been described, promising high success rates and simplified handling with steeper learning curves. In this single-center registry, we analyzed the safety and efficiency of CVP to SVP access after defining CVP as the primary access route in our center.
methodsA total of 229 consecutive patients receiving a CIED were included in the registry. Sixty-one patients were implanted by primary or bail-out SVP; 168 patients received primary cephalic preparation and CVP was performed when possible, using a hydrophilic transradial sheath.
resultsImplantation of at least one lead via CVP was successful in 151 of 168 patients (90%), and implantation of all leads was possible in 122 of 168 patients (72.6%). Total implantation times and fluoroscopy times and doses did not differ between CVP and SVP implantations. Pneumothorax occurred in 0/122 patients implanted via CVP alone, but 8/107 (7.5%) patients received at least one lead via SVP.
conclusionOur data confirms high success rates of the CVP for CIED implantation. Moreover, this method can be used without significantly prolonging the total procedure time or applying fluoroscopy dose compared to the highly efficient SVP while showing lower overall complication rates.
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.