Cargando…

Scoring System Assessment of Cephalic Vein Access for Device Implantation

The purpose of this study was to explore the usability of the cephalic vein (CV) for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) lead access by applying a scoring system to assess the venous anatomy. This prospective, single-center study included 100 consecutive patients who underwent CIED implanta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taleski, Jane, Poposka, Lidija, Janusevski, Filip, Pocesta, Bekim, Boskov, Vladimir, Boyle, Noel G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MediaSphere Medical 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32477819
http://dx.doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2018.090802
_version_ 1783539213957857280
author Taleski, Jane
Poposka, Lidija
Janusevski, Filip
Pocesta, Bekim
Boskov, Vladimir
Boyle, Noel G.
author_facet Taleski, Jane
Poposka, Lidija
Janusevski, Filip
Pocesta, Bekim
Boskov, Vladimir
Boyle, Noel G.
author_sort Taleski, Jane
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to explore the usability of the cephalic vein (CV) for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) lead access by applying a scoring system to assess the venous anatomy. This prospective, single-center study included 100 consecutive patients who underwent CIED implantation within a period of one year. Contrast-enhanced venography images were obtained for every patient, focused on the CV, “T-junction,” and the subclavian/axillary veins (SV/AVs). Though careful examination of the images, an angle, valves, diameter, noncollateral (AVDnC) score was constructed and used to aid in choosing a CV or SV/AV access approach; in all cases, however, the preferred approach was CV independent of the AVDnC score result obtained. Upon use of the scoring system, the majority of patients (54%) had type A score result (≥ 3), indicating a favorable anatomy for CV access. In 48 of these patients, the CV was used for the implantation of at least one lead. The remaining 46 (46%) patients had type B score result (≤ 2). In 41 patients from this group, SV/AV access was used for lead implantation and, in five patients, CV access was used. The number of leads introduced through the CV was associated with larger score and the operator’s experience. In conclusion, in more than 50% of patients, at least one lead could be introduced through the CV. The scoring system used herein can simplify the choice between CV and SV/AV access and could eventually increase the efficiency and safety of the procedure, especially when less experienced implanters are involved.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7252762
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MediaSphere Medical
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72527622020-05-28 Scoring System Assessment of Cephalic Vein Access for Device Implantation Taleski, Jane Poposka, Lidija Janusevski, Filip Pocesta, Bekim Boskov, Vladimir Boyle, Noel G. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag Original Research The purpose of this study was to explore the usability of the cephalic vein (CV) for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) lead access by applying a scoring system to assess the venous anatomy. This prospective, single-center study included 100 consecutive patients who underwent CIED implantation within a period of one year. Contrast-enhanced venography images were obtained for every patient, focused on the CV, “T-junction,” and the subclavian/axillary veins (SV/AVs). Though careful examination of the images, an angle, valves, diameter, noncollateral (AVDnC) score was constructed and used to aid in choosing a CV or SV/AV access approach; in all cases, however, the preferred approach was CV independent of the AVDnC score result obtained. Upon use of the scoring system, the majority of patients (54%) had type A score result (≥ 3), indicating a favorable anatomy for CV access. In 48 of these patients, the CV was used for the implantation of at least one lead. The remaining 46 (46%) patients had type B score result (≤ 2). In 41 patients from this group, SV/AV access was used for lead implantation and, in five patients, CV access was used. The number of leads introduced through the CV was associated with larger score and the operator’s experience. In conclusion, in more than 50% of patients, at least one lead could be introduced through the CV. The scoring system used herein can simplify the choice between CV and SV/AV access and could eventually increase the efficiency and safety of the procedure, especially when less experienced implanters are involved. MediaSphere Medical 2018-08-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7252762/ /pubmed/32477819 http://dx.doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2018.090802 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Taleski, Jane
Poposka, Lidija
Janusevski, Filip
Pocesta, Bekim
Boskov, Vladimir
Boyle, Noel G.
Scoring System Assessment of Cephalic Vein Access for Device Implantation
title Scoring System Assessment of Cephalic Vein Access for Device Implantation
title_full Scoring System Assessment of Cephalic Vein Access for Device Implantation
title_fullStr Scoring System Assessment of Cephalic Vein Access for Device Implantation
title_full_unstemmed Scoring System Assessment of Cephalic Vein Access for Device Implantation
title_short Scoring System Assessment of Cephalic Vein Access for Device Implantation
title_sort scoring system assessment of cephalic vein access for device implantation
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32477819
http://dx.doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2018.090802
work_keys_str_mv AT taleskijane scoringsystemassessmentofcephalicveinaccessfordeviceimplantation
AT poposkalidija scoringsystemassessmentofcephalicveinaccessfordeviceimplantation
AT janusevskifilip scoringsystemassessmentofcephalicveinaccessfordeviceimplantation
AT pocestabekim scoringsystemassessmentofcephalicveinaccessfordeviceimplantation
AT boskovvladimir scoringsystemassessmentofcephalicveinaccessfordeviceimplantation
AT boylenoelg scoringsystemassessmentofcephalicveinaccessfordeviceimplantation