We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical predictors of successful cephalic vein access for implantation of endocardial leads.
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology : An International Journal of Arrhythmias and Pacing 2002 October
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there are any patient characteristics that predict successful use of the cephalic vein for endocardial lead implantation.
METHODS: One-hundred fifty consecutive patients who underwent implantation of one or more endocardial pacemaker (N = 63) or defibrillator (N = 87) leads using a cephalic vein approach were included in this prospective study. The mean age of the patients was 63 +/- 14 years, and 115 (77%) were men. Ninety-one patients (61%) had coronary artery disease, 77 patients (51%) had hypertension, and 42 patients (28%) had diabetes. The mean ejection fraction was 0.34 +/- 0.17.
RESULTS: At least one lead was successfully implanted using a cephalic vein approach in 96 patients (64%). The most common reason for failure of the cephalic vein approach was a small cephalic vein, found in 25 patients (17%). Independent predictors of successful cephalic vein use were diabetes (p < 0.001), ejection fraction < or = 0.40 (p < 0.05), and male gender (p < 0.05). At least one endocardial lead was implanted in 19 of the 24 (79%) men who had an ejection fraction < or = 0.40 and diabetes, compared to 4 of the 11 (36%) women who had an ejection fraction > 0.40 and did not have diabetes. The only independent predictor of successful cephalic vein implantation among nondiabetics was an ejection fraction < or = 0.40 (p < 0.01). Body size was not an independent predictor of successful cephalic vein use.
CONCLUSION: Baseline patient characteristics influence the likelihood of successful endocardial lead implantation using a cephalic vein approach. Diabetes, ventricular dysfunction, male gender and are associated with an increased likelihood of a successful implant using the cephalic vein. Smaller leads and and better techniques are needed to improve the success rate of cephalic vein implantation in all patients.
METHODS: One-hundred fifty consecutive patients who underwent implantation of one or more endocardial pacemaker (N = 63) or defibrillator (N = 87) leads using a cephalic vein approach were included in this prospective study. The mean age of the patients was 63 +/- 14 years, and 115 (77%) were men. Ninety-one patients (61%) had coronary artery disease, 77 patients (51%) had hypertension, and 42 patients (28%) had diabetes. The mean ejection fraction was 0.34 +/- 0.17.
RESULTS: At least one lead was successfully implanted using a cephalic vein approach in 96 patients (64%). The most common reason for failure of the cephalic vein approach was a small cephalic vein, found in 25 patients (17%). Independent predictors of successful cephalic vein use were diabetes (p < 0.001), ejection fraction < or = 0.40 (p < 0.05), and male gender (p < 0.05). At least one endocardial lead was implanted in 19 of the 24 (79%) men who had an ejection fraction < or = 0.40 and diabetes, compared to 4 of the 11 (36%) women who had an ejection fraction > 0.40 and did not have diabetes. The only independent predictor of successful cephalic vein implantation among nondiabetics was an ejection fraction < or = 0.40 (p < 0.01). Body size was not an independent predictor of successful cephalic vein use.
CONCLUSION: Baseline patient characteristics influence the likelihood of successful endocardial lead implantation using a cephalic vein approach. Diabetes, ventricular dysfunction, male gender and are associated with an increased likelihood of a successful implant using the cephalic vein. Smaller leads and and better techniques are needed to improve the success rate of cephalic vein implantation in all patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app