Temporary pacemaker implantation via median cubital vein: A simple safe and effective technique

BACKGROUND: 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. HYPOTHESIS: This study investigated the feasibility and safety of a novel method of PM implantation via the median cubital vein. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: Temporary PM implantation via the median cubital vein is safe, effective, and less time‐consuming.