ArticleCureus2026
Outcome of Ultrasound-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Versus Cephalic Cutdown Permanent Pacemaker Implantation.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe universal standard practice for central venous access during permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is fluoroscopy with venogram. Ultrasound-guided access is increasingly encouraged to minimize radiation, contrast load, and inadvertent injury to surrounding structures. However, its complication profile in PPM implantation remains uncertain. This study compared complications and radiation exposure across ultrasound-guided, fluoroscopy-guided, and cephalic vein cutdown approaches.
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study of 202 consecutive patients undergoing elective or urgent PPM implantation by experienced operators at a single center (August 2021-August 2022) was performed. Access-related complications, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose were analyzed. Complications were predefined as one or more of the following events: arterial puncture, haematoma, pneumothorax, lead or device failure, or procedure failure.
resultsAmong the cohort, 56/202 (28%) underwent ultrasound-guided access, 114/202 (56%) fluoroscopy-guided access, and 32/202 (16%) cephalic cutdown. Complication rates were 5.4% (3/56) for ultrasound-guided, 9.6% (11/114) for fluoroscopy-guided, and 9.4% (3/32) for cephalic cutdown (χ² test, p = 0.62). Radiation dose differed significantly between groups (Kruskal-Wallis test, p < 0.001), with the lowest median (IQR) exposure in the cephalic cutdown group at 10.1 mGy (6.7-17.0), followed by ultrasound-guided access at 13.4 mGy (9.2-23.1) and fluoroscopy-guided procedures at 19.2 mGy (12.2-31.0).
conclusionUltrasound-guided access was associated with the lowest observed complication rate, although this was not statistically significant, likely reflecting limited sample size. Radiation exposure varied significantly by access method, with ultrasound guidance offering an intermediate profile between cephalic cutdown and fluoroscopy. These findings support the safety of ultrasound-guided access and highlight the need for larger studies to confirm its role in reducing complications and radiation burden in PPM implantation.
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.