Outcomes of Supraclavicular Access in Temporary Pacemaker Implantation.

Background: Temporary pacemakers (TPM) are often placed using femoral, jugular, or subclavian veins, but these approaches have risks like pneumothorax or lead dislodgement. The supraclavicular route may offer a safer alternative, but data is limited. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we assessed 3,569 patients who got a TPM at a tertiary hospital (2020–2024). Of these, 1,644 had supraclavicular access, and 1,925 had infraclavicular access. We compared success rates, complications, and procedure times. Data came from medical records, and all analyses were performed using SPSS v26. Results: The study compared outcomes between supraclavicular (n=1,644) and infraclavicular (n=1,925) approaches for temporary pacemaker implantation in 3,569 patients. Baseline characteristics were well-matched between groups, with similar age (63.7 vs 64.1 years), sex distribution (56.3% vs 55.7% male), and comorbidity profiles (all p>0.05). The supraclavicular approach demonstrated superior safety outcomes, with significantly lower overall complication rates (9.3% vs 14.8%, p<0.001), including reduced arterial puncture (2.0% vs 4.2%), pneumothorax (0.3% vs 1.1%), lead dislodgement (4.5% vs 6.8%), and hematoma formation (1.5% vs 2.7%). Multivariate analysis identified supraclavicular access as independently protective against complications (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.73), along with younger age and normal renal function. Procedural efficiency favored the supraclavicular approach, with shorter mean procedure times (24.6 vs 29.1 minutes, p<0.001) and higher first-attempt success rates (89.4% vs 83.2%, p<0.001). Predictive modeling showed excellent discrimination for complications (AUC 0.73), while survival analysis confirmed prolonged complication-free intervals with supraclavicular access (log-rank p=0.01). Conclusion: Supraclavicular access for TPM is safer, faster, and more successful than the traditional infraclavicular approach. It should be considered as a first-choice method, especially in emergencies.

AIUM Practice Parameter for the Use of Ultrasound to Guide Vascular Access Procedures.

The aim of the study was to evaluate predictors of cardiac conduction disturbance associated with increased risk of temporary and permanent pacemaker implantation after endovascular aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Material and methods. We analyzed patients who underwent surgical treatment for aortic valve replacement by endovascular treatment in Krasnoyarsk Regional Clinical Hospital from January 2018 to May 2023. The total number of people included in the study is 157. Results and discussion. The association between the occurrence of atrioventricular block of II–III degree, left bundle branch block and atrial fibrillation after TAVR implantation, which required temporary pacemaker implantation and permanent pacemaker implantation, was revealed. Atrioventricular block of grade II-III was first detected in 11 (13.3 %) patients after TAVR, left bundle branch block – in 22 (26.5 %) and atrial fibrillation – in 11 (13.3 %). The need for temporary pacing during TAVR was necessary in 35 (23.6 %) patients. 34 (23.0 %) patients had a temporary pacemaker placed within the first 2 days after surgical intervention and 1 patient (0.7 %) after 3 days. Regression analysis revealed 6 significant risk factors for temporary pacemaker implantation: left bundle branch block (p = 0.002), atrial fibrillation (p = 0.030), 1st degree atrioventricular block (p = 0.032), age (p = 0.012), female gender (p = 0.033) and history of acute myocardial infarction (p = 0.024). Permanent pacemaker implantation was performed in 7 (4.5 %) patients in the period from 4 to 20 days, including 6 (85.7 %) patients due to complete atrioventricular block and 1 (14.3 %) patient due to sinus node dysfunction. Permanent pacemaker was implanted to five (3.2 %) patients in the period from 6 months to 3.6 years, including 3 (1.9 %) patients due to complete atrioventricular block and 2 (1.3 %) patients due to sinus node dysfunction. Regression analysis revealed 2 significant risk factors for permanent pacemaker implantation: presence of atrial fibrillation before surgical intervention (p = 0.002; r = 0.160) and presence of left bundle branch block before TAVR (p = 0.037; r = 0.108). Conclusions. Identification of predictors of atrioventricular block of II–III degrees after TAVR will facilitate timely temporary pacing and permanent pacemaker implantation to prevent complications due to bradyarrhythmias.

Temporary cardiac pacemaker implantation (PM) via the femoral and subclavian veins is widely used in clinics to treat patients with severe bradycardia or tachycardia, but it is technically challenging and potentially associated with various complications. This study investigated the feasibility and safety of a novel method of PM implantation via the median cubital vein. A total of 279 patients of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University between March 2020 and December 2021 who required no-emergency PM implantation were enrolled. The patients were divided into three groups based on the temporary PM implantation routes: F-control (n = 107), via the femoral vein; S-control (n = 67), via the subclavian vein, and N-group (n = 105), via the median cubital vein. The sheath placement time (SPT), electrode placement time (EPT), electrode arrival rate (EAR), rate of sensing and pacing (RSP), radiation quantity (RD), electrode dislocation rate (EDR) and average electrode retention time (AERT) were recorded and evaluated. In addition, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) were used to evaluate the comfort levels of patients in the three groups. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to age, EAR, RSP, EPT, RD, and AERT (p > 0.05). However, the N-group had significantly lower SPT than the F-control and S-control groups (67.0 ± 22.0 s vs. 321.7 ± 122.2 s and 307.3 ± 128.5 s, p = 0.000). Additionally, the F-control had significantly higher EDR than the S-control group and the N-group (11 (10.3%) vs. 2 (3.0%) and 3 (2.9%), p = 0.036). Besides, comparison of the HAMA and SDS scores before and after PM implantation showed significant differences in the S-control group (p = 0.010) and the N-group (p = 0.000). Temporary PM implantation via the median cubital vein is safe, effective, and less time-consuming.

Background Ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization is crucial for central venous access, but the choice between the supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches lacks comprehensive comparison. This study addresses this gap by conducting a prospective observational analysis of both techniques. The supraclavicular method accesses the vein from above the clavicle while the infraclavicular targets it below. Our model-driven approach aims to elucidate the procedural nuances, success rates, and complications associated with each method. The findings intend to equip clinicians with evidence-based insights, facilitating informed decision-making for improved procedural outcomes in ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization. Aim and objective This study aims to comprehensively compare the supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches in ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization, evaluating the procedural minutiae, potential advantages, and challenges associated with each technique. Employing a prospective observational methodology, our objective is to provide evidence-based insights for approaches in ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization, evaluating procedural nuances, success rates, and complications during the procedure. Methods In this prospective investigation, 276 patients aged between 20 and 55 years were randomly assigned to two groups: 143 patients in the supraclavicular group and 133 patients in the infraclavicular group. Specifically, patients admitted for elective surgery necessitating postoperative ICU care were considered. The study assessed various variables, including success rate, time required for venous visualization, venous puncture, catheterization, total procedure duration, and incidence of mechanical complications, to facilitate group comparisons. Results The mean procedural time was shorter in the supraclavicular group compared to the infraclavicular group, with durations of 2 minutes and 2 seconds versus 3 minutes and 40 seconds, respectively (95% CI). This difference was statistically significant. Similarly, the mean durations for venous visualization, venous puncture, and venous catheterization were also shorter in the supraclavicular group, and these differences were statistically significant. Both groups achieved a 100% success rate, with the first attempt success rate being higher in the supraclavicular subclavian vein group. Conclusion The findings of this study demonstrate a statistically significant advantage in favor of the supraclavicular approach for ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization. The shorter mean procedural time, as well as durations for venous visualization, puncture, and catheterization, emphasize the efficiency of the supraclavicular technique. The consistently achieved 100% success rate, coupled with a higher first-attempt success rate, further underscores the proficiency of the supraclavicular subclavian vein group. These results collectively suggest that the supraclavicular approach is not only time-efficient but also superior in terms of successful central line placement, making it a promising choice for both emergency and critical care settings.

Aim of our study was to assess the association between COVID-19 lockdown and cardiac pacing (CP) procedures rates in Campania Region, the third-most-populous region of Italy with about 5.8 million residents. Data about type of CP procedures and unit admissions were obtained from 14 CP centers throughout Campania region from March 10th and May 4Th 2020 and compared with the same time frame in 2019. A remarkable reduction in both temporary (reduction rate: -62.5%), definitive pace maker (reduction rate: -30.2%), ICD (reduction rate: -48.3%) and CRT (reduction rate: -48.4%) implantation and in CRT replacement (reduction rate: -88.8%) procedures has been shown between the two observation periods among 951 hospitalized patients. Planned hospitalizations showed a reduction rate of 69.3%. Conversely, urgent intra-hospital admissions (increase rate +430%; P < 0.001) increased during COVID-19 lockdown and no significant difference in attendance rate to the emergency department (increase rate +6.7%; P = 0.254) has been shown. COVID-19 lockdown was associated with a remarkable decrease in CP procedures due to the reduction of planned hospitalizations in Campania Region; however, no significant difference in emergency department admission rate was shown.

Complete atrioventricular block (AVB) is rare during pregnancy. Congenital atrioventricular block is the most common type of heart block in this group of patients. About one‑third of female patients with complete AVB remain asymptomatic until adulthood and may be first diagnosed during pregnancy. We present a case of a 31‑year‑old pregnant woman with complete AVB who was in her final stage of pregnancy. After reviewing the various advantages and disadvantages of feasible approaches with the patient, we decided to use fluoroscopy‑guided temporary backup pacemaker implantation. Estimated radiation skin dose was small and safe. The patient agreed to this treatment plan. Four days prior to scheduled cesarean delivery (39 weeks of gestation), during a one‑day stay in the hospital, the patient underwent single‑chamber temporary pacemaker implantation (using transvenous active fixation lead and external re‑sterilized pacemaker). The abdominal and pelvic regions were covered with a lead shield. The caesarean delivery was uneventful and the baby was healthy with an Apgar score of 10. JRCD 2017; 3 (6): 205–209.

Introduction: Temporary transvenous pacemaker insertion is an emergency lifesaving procedure for patients with hemodynamically unstable and life-threatening bradyarrythmias. The aim of this study was to analyze demographics, indications, route of insertion and complications in patients undergoing temporary transvenous pacemaker implantation. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study conducted at a tertiary-care center in Nepal. The hospital records of patients who had undergone temporary transvenous pacemaker implantation between July 2015 and June 2019 were reviewed. Results: A total of 343 patients with mean age of 65.52±16.09 years received temporary transvenous pacing. Out of these 205 (59.8%) were males. Greater proportion of patients were between the age group of 70-80 years (n=76, 22.2%). Hypertension (n=97, 28.3%) was the most common comorbidity noted. The most common indication for temporary pacing was symptomatic complete heart block 165 (59.6%). Total of 288 (84%) patients received permanent pacemakers while 55(16%) had reversible cause so TPI was removed. Right Femoral vein was the most common (99%) venous access site. Among the 343 patients, complications were observed in 29 (8.4%) of cases during and after the temporary transvenous pacemaker insertion. The overall mortality stood low at 2% (n=7). Conclusion: Temporary transvenous pacemaker insertion is required in elderly population presenting with bradyarrythmias and occasionally in acute myocardial infarction presenting with bradyarrythmias as complication. Temporary pacemaker insertion was overall a safe procedure with infrequent serious complications; however, strategies to avoid and alleviate such complications (RV perforation) should be sought and implemented.

Introduction Temporary transvenous pacemaker insertion is an emergency lifesaving procedure for patients with hemodynamically unstable and life-threatening bradyarrythmias. The aim of this study was to analyze demographics, indications, route of insertion and complications in patients undergoing temporary transvenous pacemaker implantation.&#x0D; MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study conducted at a tertiary-care center in Nepal. The hospital records of patients who had undergone temporary transvenous pacemaker implantation between July 2015 and June 2019 were reviewed.&#x0D; ResultsA total of 343 patients with mean age of 65.52±16.09 years received temporary transvenous pacing. Out of these 205 (59.8%) were males. Greater proportion of patients were between the age group of 70-80 years (n=76, 22.2%). Hypertension (n=97, 28.3%) was the most common comorbidity noted. The most common indication for temporary pacing was symptomatic complete heart block 165 (59.6%). Total of 288 (84%) patients received permanent pacemakers while 55(16%) had reversible cause so TPI was removed. Right Femoral vein was the most common (99%) venous access site. Among the 343 patients, complications were observed in 29 (8.4%) of cases during and after the temporary transvenous pacemaker insertion. The overall mortality stood low at 2% (n=7).&#x0D; ConclusionTemporary transvenous pacemaker insertion is required in elderly population presenting with bradyarrythmias and occasionally in acute myocardial infarction presenting with bradyarrythmias as complication. Temporary pacemaker insertion was overall a safe procedure with infrequent serious complications; however, strategies to avoid and alleviate such complications (RV perforation) should be sought and implemented.

Introduction: Central vein catheterization can be introduced in subclavian vein (SCV), internal jugular vein or femoral vein for volume resuscitation and invasive monitoring technique. Due to anatomical advantage and lesser risk of infection subclavian vein is preferred. Either supraclavicular (SC) or infraclavicular (IC) approach could be used for subclavian vein catheterization. The aim of the study was to compare SC and IC approach in ease of catheterization of SCV and record the complications present if any.&#x0D; Methods and materials: This was a hospital based comparative, interventional study conducted from November 2016 to October 2017 in Operation Theater in Bir Hospital. In this study, 70 patients for elective surgical cases meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly enrolled. Then samples were equally divided by lottery into either supraclavicular or infraclavicular approach groups. The Access time, cannulation success rate, attempts made for successful cannulation of vein, easy insertion of catheter and guide wire, approximate inserted length of catheter and associated complications in both groups were recorded. Data was entered in statistical software SPSS 16. Chi-square test was used. P value &lt; 0.05 was considered significant.&#x0D; Results: The mean access time in group SC for SCV catheterization was 2.12 ± 0.81 min compared to 2.83 ± 0.99 min in group IC (p-value= 0.002). The overall success rate in catheterization of the right SCV using SC approach (34 / 35) was better as compared with group IC (33 / 35) using IC approach. First successful attempt in the SC group was 74.28% as compared with 57.14% in the IC group.&#x0D; Conclusion: The SC approach of SCV catheterization can be considered alternative to IC approach in terms of landmark accessibility, success rate and rate of complications.

Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the clinical characteristics, comorbidities, responsible dis­eases and in-hospital mortality of patients who received a temporary pacemaker Methods: Our study included 545 patients who received a temporary pacemaker due to various causes during their hospitalization between January 2008 and May 2012. Results: Of the 545 patients whose records were scanned retrospectively in our study, 235 (43%) were fe­male and 310 (57%) were male. Average age of patients was 70±14.2 years (20,100). Leading cause for receiving pacemaker was third degree atrioventricular block (178 patients, 32.6%).Other causes were bradycardia or asys­tole during procedures such as coronary angiography, catheterization etc. (101 patients, 18.5%), symptomatic sinus bradycardia (70 patients, 12.8%), pacemaker end of life (During procedure, 65 patients, 11.9%). Temporary pacemaker implantation due to drugs, hyperpotasemia and both was 6.2% (34 patients), 3.6% (20 patients) and 1.1% (6 patients) respectively. Eight patients used drugs for committing suicide. While the top responsible drugs for pacemaker implantation were digoxin, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers, only one patient was using a noncardiac drug (oxcarbamazepin). Half of the patients had coronary artery disease (276 patients, 51%). 101 pa­tients (18.5%) received a temporary pacemaker due to block in the course of myocardial infarction. 85 patients died during their hospitalization (15.5%). Conclusıon: Although causes for temporary pacemaker implantation has changed over time, myocardial infarction with block still remains fatal even a temporary pacemaker is inserted.

Infraclavicular Thoracic Outlet Decompression Compared to Supraclavicular Thoracic Outlet Decompression for the Management of Venous Thoracic Outlet Syndrome

Background and Aims:Infraclavicular (IC) approach of subclavian vein (SCV) catheterisation is widely used as compared to supraclavicular (SC) approach. The aim of the study was to compare the ease of catheterisation of SCV using SC versus IC approach and also record the incidence of complications related to either approach, if any.Methods:In the study, 60 patients enrolled were randomly divided into two groups of 30 patients each. In Gp. SC right SCV catheterisation was performed using SC approach and in Gp. IC catheterisation was performed using IC approach. Access time, success rate of cannulation, number of attempts to cannulate vein, ease of guidewire and catheter insertion and length of catheter inserted and any associated complications were recorded.Results:The mean access time in group SC for SCV catheterisation was 4.30 ± 1.02 min compared to 6.07 ± 2.14 min in group IC. The overall success rate in catheterisation of the right SCV using SC approach (29 out of 30) was better as compared with group IC (27 out of 30) using IC approach. First attempt success in the SC group was 75.6% as compared with 59.25% in the IC group. All successful subclavian vein catheterisations in SC group and IC group were associated with smooth insertion of guidewire following subclavian venipuncture.Conclusion:The SC approach of SCV catheterisation is comparable to IC approach in terms of landmarks accessibility, success rate and rate of complications.

Aim. To evaluate the risk factors for the development of cardiac conduction disorders and to determine their significance in temporary and permanent pacemaker implantation in patients after surgical aortic valve replacement and other combined cardiac surgical interventions. Material and methods. The analysis of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement and other combined cardiac surgical interventions for the period from January 2018 to May 2023 in Krasnoyarsk Regional Clinical Hospital was performed. Results. The correlation between the occurrence of atrioventricular block (AVB) of II-III degree and sinus node dysfunction (SND) that required temporary pacemaker and permanent pacemaker implantation in patients after surgical prosthesis of aortic valve and other combined cardiac surgical interventions was determined. After AVR and other combined cardiac interventions atrial fibrillation (AF) was detected in 107 (44.6%) patients, left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB) in 8 (3.3%) patients, and first-degree AV block in 12 (5.0%) patients. The need for temporary pacemaker after surgical prosthetic aortic valve and other combined cardiac surgical interventions was in 79 (45.4%) patients. 76 (96.2%) patients underwent TCP within 2 days after surgical treatment and 3 (3.8%) patients within 72 hours. According to single-factor analysis, 4 important reasons for required temporary pacemaker were identified: atrial fibrillation (OR=2,47, 95% CI=1,31-4,46, p=0,005), age older than 58.5 years (OR=2,52, 95% CI=1,29-4,93, p=0,006), glomerular filtration rate less than 77 ml/min (OR=2,12, 95% CI =1,08-4,17, p=0,028) and atrial tachycardia (OR=8,00, 95% CI=1,04-67,92, p=0,046). Рermanent pacemaker implantation was performed in 12 (6.7%) patients, 11 (91.7%) due to complete AVB and 1 (8.3%) patient due to SVD development. Pacemaker implantation after cardiac surgery was performed in 8 (66.7%) patients from 5 to 8 days, 3 (25.0%) patients from 10 to 15 days, and 1 (8.3%) patient after 23 months. According to regression analysis, a significant sign indicating a high risk of pacemaker implantation — presence of baseline left bundle branch block (OR= 6,32, 95% CI=1,09-36,70, p=0.020). Conclusion. The identified risk factors for conduction disturbances after aortic valve replacement and other cardiac surgical interventions can be used for timely conduction and implantation of a permanent pacemaker.

Patients treated with a temporary pacemaker (TPM) due to atrioventricular (AV) block are often monitored after discontinuation of AV node blocking drugs to evaluate the indication for permanent pacing. However, the impact of drug discontinuation is sparsely documented. We investigated to what extent drug discontinuation abolished the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. All hospital records of patients who received a TPM at Aalborg Hospital, Denmark, between January 2000 and March 2011 (n = 575) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with AV block who were treated with a TPM and concomitant cessation of drug therapy were included if there was no other underlying mechanism causing the AV block. AV blocking drugs included antiarrhythmic agents classes II-IV and digoxin. Fifty-five patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Forty-seven patients had an indication for a PPM at the initial hospital admission, despite drug discontinuation. Of the remaining 8 patients who were discharged without a PPM, 3 subsequently experienced events: 2 had recurrence of AV block requiring a PPM, and 1 experienced syncope. Thus, in total, 49 (89%) patients had a final indication for a permanent pacemaker (PPM). Of patients receiving beta-blocker monotherapy, 26 (96%) had an indication for a PPM. TPM implantation was complicated by infection or displacement in 11% of cases. The vast majority of patients treated with a TPM due to AV block and who receive beta-blockers alone or in combination with digoxin have a final indication for a PPM despite cessation of drug treatment. TPM are frequently associated with complications.