SynthesisPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Complications of Temporary Transvenous Cardiac Pacing by Access Site: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe femoral and internal jugular veins are the most commonly used access routes for TTVPM placement. Femoral access is associated with higher rates of infection and bleeding due to groin proximity, whereas jugular access may increase the risk of vascular injury or pneumothorax when performed without imaging guidance. Despite numerous observational studies comparing these access sites, the evidence remains inconclusive due to heterogeneous methodologies, small sample sizes, and varying definitions of complications. To address these limitations, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the relative safety and effectiveness of jugular versus femoral access for TTVPM placement.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was performed from June 28, 2025, without language restrictions. Eligible studies included adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing TTVPM placement and directly comparing femoral and jugular venous access. Trials were considered if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: bleeding, infection, lead repositioning, cardiac perforation, or other major procedural complications. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Six observational studies published between 2013 and 2024 met the inclusion criteria and encompassed 2,267 patients from diverse clinical settings. Bleeding complications were reported in five studies (n = 1,457), showing no statistically significant difference between access sites (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.18-1.60; p = 0.27). Four studies (n = 528) reported catheter-related infections, demonstrating a significantly lower risk with jugular access (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.11-0.53; p = 0.0003). Lead repositioning (RR 0.73; p = 0.46) and cardiac perforation (RR 0.50; p = 0.33) showed no significant differences.
conclusionJugular venous access for TTVPM placement is associated with a significantly lower risk of catheter-related infections compared with femoral access, while rates of bleeding, lead repositioning, and cardiac perforation do not significantly differ between approaches. Jugular access may be preferred for patients expected to require prolonged pacing or those at high infection risk, whereas femoral access remains reasonable for short-term or emergent indications.
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.