ReviewHeart rhythm O22026
Ultrasound-guided axillary access outperforms subclavian puncture for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: A network meta-analysis of 130,831 patients.
Review in Heart rhythm O2, 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
Background: The optimal venous access route for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation remains debated. Objective: We compared the efficacy and safety of subclavian vein puncture (SVP), cephalic vein cutdown (CVP), and axillary vein puncture guided by fluoroscopy (FL-AVP) and ultrasound (US-AVP). Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science (until September 24, 2025) identified randomized and observational studies comparing ≥2 venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation in adults. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis estimated odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity, network consistency, and ranking probabilities were assessed using Results: Of the 4316 records screened, 25 studies (130,831 patients) were included. CVP was significantly less successful than FL-AVP (OR 0.18), SVP (OR 0.14), and US-AVP (OR 0.17). SVP carried a higher risk of overall complications than US-AVP (OR 2.21). Procedure time was longer for CVP than for FL-AVP or US-AVP. FL-AVP entailed greater fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure than US-AVP. Pneumothorax occurred less frequently with CVP and FL-AVP than with SVP, whereas lead dislodgement and pericardial effusion were less common with CVP than with SVP. Network ranking favored SVP for procedural success and US-AVP for safety and radiation reduction. Conclusion: Axillary (ultrasound- or fluoroscopy-guided) and cephalic approaches outperform subclavian puncture in risk-benefit. US-AVP is considered the first-line technique, FL-AVP is a valid alternative when ultrasound is unavailable, and CVP is preferred for selected anatomies. In contrast, SVP should be reserved for bailout cases.PROSPERO CRD420251017329.
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.