File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A cephalic vein cutdown and venography technique to facilitate pacemaker and defibrillator lead implantation

TitleA cephalic vein cutdown and venography technique to facilitate pacemaker and defibrillator lead implantation
Authors
Issue Date2001
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0147-8389&site=1
Citation
Pace - Pacing And Clinical Electrophysiology, 2001, v. 24 n. 4 I, p. 469-473 How to Cite?
AbstractThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a cephalic vein cut-down and venography technique for implantation of a pacemaker or ICD and to determine the causes of failure of cephalic vein cutdown. In consecutive patients who underwent pacemaker or ICD implants, a modified cephalic vein guidewire technique was performed. This technique was attempted in 289 pacemaker implants and 26 ICD implants (155 men, 160 women; mean age 74 ± 10 years). The success rate for implantation of a single chamber and a dual chamber device by using this technique alone was 84% (54/64) and 74% (185/251), respectively (P = 0.10). In an additional 7% of patients with dual chamber implant, the cephalic vein can be used for passage of the ventricular lead. A cephalic venogram was required in 82 patients and facilitated the passage of the guidewire in 62 (79%) of them. No complication related to vascular access was observed with this technique. This technique failed in 64 (17%) of 315 patients due to (1) failure of cephalic vein isolation (48%), (2) venous stenosis (24%), of (3) venous torturosity or anomalies (28%). There were no significant differences in the patient's age, sex, type of device, and the fluoroscopic time for lead placement between patients with or without successful lead placement using this technique (all P > 0.05). In conclusion, a simple modification of the cephalic vein guidewire technique together with venography has facilitated the placement of leads during pacemaker and ICD implant. This technique is safe and applicable in the majority of patients and avoids the risk of subclavian puncture.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/162496
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.156
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.662
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTse, HFen_US
dc.contributor.authorLau, CPen_US
dc.contributor.authorLeung, SKen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-05T05:20:31Z-
dc.date.available2012-09-05T05:20:31Z-
dc.date.issued2001en_US
dc.identifier.citationPace - Pacing And Clinical Electrophysiology, 2001, v. 24 n. 4 I, p. 469-473en_US
dc.identifier.issn0147-8389en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/162496-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a cephalic vein cut-down and venography technique for implantation of a pacemaker or ICD and to determine the causes of failure of cephalic vein cutdown. In consecutive patients who underwent pacemaker or ICD implants, a modified cephalic vein guidewire technique was performed. This technique was attempted in 289 pacemaker implants and 26 ICD implants (155 men, 160 women; mean age 74 ± 10 years). The success rate for implantation of a single chamber and a dual chamber device by using this technique alone was 84% (54/64) and 74% (185/251), respectively (P = 0.10). In an additional 7% of patients with dual chamber implant, the cephalic vein can be used for passage of the ventricular lead. A cephalic venogram was required in 82 patients and facilitated the passage of the guidewire in 62 (79%) of them. No complication related to vascular access was observed with this technique. This technique failed in 64 (17%) of 315 patients due to (1) failure of cephalic vein isolation (48%), (2) venous stenosis (24%), of (3) venous torturosity or anomalies (28%). There were no significant differences in the patient's age, sex, type of device, and the fluoroscopic time for lead placement between patients with or without successful lead placement using this technique (all P > 0.05). In conclusion, a simple modification of the cephalic vein guidewire technique together with venography has facilitated the placement of leads during pacemaker and ICD implant. This technique is safe and applicable in the majority of patients and avoids the risk of subclavian puncture.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0147-8389&site=1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshAdulten_US
dc.subject.meshAgeden_US
dc.subject.meshDefibrillators, Implantableen_US
dc.subject.meshElectrodes, Implanteden_US
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subject.meshPacemaker, Artificialen_US
dc.subject.meshPectoralis Muscles - Blood Supplyen_US
dc.subject.meshPhlebographyen_US
dc.subject.meshPuncturesen_US
dc.subject.meshSubclavian Veinen_US
dc.subject.meshTreatment Failureen_US
dc.subject.meshVenous Cutdownen_US
dc.titleA cephalic vein cutdown and venography technique to facilitate pacemaker and defibrillator lead implantationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailTse, HF:hftse@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityTse, HF=rp00428en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.00469.x-
dc.identifier.pmid11341084-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0035040506en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros60571-
dc.identifier.hkuros10076-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0035040506&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume24en_US
dc.identifier.issue4 Ien_US
dc.identifier.spage469en_US
dc.identifier.epage473en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000168343000010-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTse, HF=7006070805en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLau, CP=7401968501en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, SK=7202044902en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats