ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Ultrasound-Guided Axillary Access Using a Micropuncture Needle Versus Conventional Cephalic Venous Access for Implantation of Cardiac Devices: A Single-Center Randomized Trial.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- Implementation of transcutaneous ultrasound-guided axillary vein access for implantations, revisions and upgrades of cardiac implantable electronic devices in a large tertiary care center.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Quantifying the Learning Curve in Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Access: Proficiency Metrics of Self-Taught Axillary Vein Puncture for CIED Implantation.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Axillary Versus Subclavian Venous Access for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation: Complications, Evolving Techniques and Practical Recommendations.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Optimizing Ultrasound-Guided Placement of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Current Uses and Challenges.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Ultrasound-guided axillary (USAX) vein puncture is a relatively new method to obtain venous access for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). However, its use is limited as most of the operators are not familiar with this technique. Our aim was to investigate the safety and efficacy of the USAX compared with the traditional cephalic vein dissection for venous access in CIED implantation. (2) Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, controlled, superiority trial. A total of 114 patients were randomized (1:1 ratio) to either USAX (u/s axillary group; 59 patients) or cephalic vein access (cephalic group; 55 patients). The primary study endpoint was defined as successful placement of all leads via the chosen access. Secondary study endpoints included time from local anesthetic injection to lead advancement in the SVC, total procedure time (skin to skin), procedure-related complications and pain perception. (3) Results: USAX was superior to cephalic access in terms of primary endpoint (OR: 4.3, 95% CI: 1.3, 14.0;
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.