Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39471341›Full record

SynthesisEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2024

Ultrasound-guided vs. fluoro-guided axillary venous access for cardiac implantable electronic devices: a patient-based meta-analysis.

Francesco Vitali, Marco Zuin, Paul Charles, Javier Jiménez-Díaz, Seth H Sheldon, Ana Paula Tagliari, Federico Migliore, Michele Malagù, Mathieu Montoy, Felipe Higuera Sobrino and 4 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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
  4. Prospective evaluation of carbon dioxide as a contrast medium in pacemakers or defibrillators carriers for venous angiography (SPARKLING pilot study).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
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Francesco VitaliCardiology Department, Sant'Anna University Hospital, University of Ferrara, Via Aldo Moro 8, 44124 Cona, Ferrara, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0667-7616
Marco ZuinCardiology Department, Sant'Anna University Hospital, University of Ferrara, Via Aldo Moro 8, 44124 Cona, Ferrara, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4559-1292
Paul CharlesHôpital de la Croix Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1371-3678
Javier Jiménez-DíazArrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, Hospital General Universitario of Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6258-3999
Seth H SheldonDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0543-2040
Ana Paula TagliariProgram in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Sciences, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5325-4229
Federico MiglioreDepartment of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8574-9421
Michele MalagùCardiology Department, Sant'Anna University Hospital, University of Ferrara, Via Aldo Moro 8, 44124 Cona, Ferrara, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1972-9665
Mathieu MontoyHôpital de la Croix Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Felipe Higuera SobrinoArrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, Hospital General Universitario of Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Alex M CourtneyHôpital de la Croix Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Adriano Nunes KochiDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Hospital Mãe de Deus, Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7839-2054
Samir FarehHôpital de la Croix Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Matteo BertiniCardiology Department, Sant'Anna University Hospital, University of Ferrara, Via Aldo Moro 8, 44124 Cona, Ferrara, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5285-7140

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe use of ultrasound (US)-guided venous puncture for cardiac pacing/defibrillation lead placement may minimize the risk of periprocedural complications and radiation exposure. However, none of the published studies have been sufficiently powered to recommend this approach as the standard of care. We compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided axillary venous puncture (US-AVP) vs. fluoroscopy-guided access for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis based on previously published studies. METHODS AND

resultsWe conducted a thorough literature search encompassing longitudinal investigations (five randomized and one prospective studies) reporting data on X-ray-guided and US-AVP for CIED procedures. The primary endpoint was to compare the safety of the two techniques. Secondary endpoints included the success rate of each technique, the necessity of switching to alternative methods, the time needed to obtain venous access, X-ray exposure, and the occurrence of periprocedural complications. Six longitudinal eligible studies were identified including 700 patients (mean age 74.9 ± 12.1 years, 68.4% males). The two approaches for venous cannulation showed a similar success rate. The use of an X-ray-guided approach significantly increased the risk of inadvertent arterial punctures (OR: 2.15, 95% CI: 2.10-2.21, P = 0.003), after adjustment for potential confounders. Conversely, a US-AVP approach reduces time to vascular access, radiation exposure, and the number of attempts to vascular access.

conclusionThe US-AVP enhances safety by reducing radiation exposure and time to vascular access while maintaining a low rate of major complications compared to the X-ray-guided approach. CLINICAL

trial registrationPROSPERO identifier: CRD42024539623.

Indexed as

Axillary VeinDefibrillators, ImplantablePuncturesUltrasonography, InterventionalAgedAged, 80 and overCatheterization, PeripheralFemaleFluoroscopyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPacemaker, ArtificialProsthesis ImplantationRadiation ExposureRadiography, InterventionalAxillary venous accessICDPacemakerUltrasoundVenous access

Identifiers

PMID39471341
PMCPMC11579654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.