Vascular Accesses in Cardiac Stimulation and Electrophysiology: An Italian Survey Promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing)

Simple Summary Both cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations and electrophysiology procedures require vascular access to reach the heart through vessels. Different types of access carry different rates of complications. Safety and ease of vascular access are the main targets of physicians; in fact, each complication causes morbidity and raises costs. To avoid complications, the use of ultrasound-guided vessel puncture and closure devices is increasing in frequency. We conducted a survey in Italian centers to outline common practice; an uneven pattern of habits emerged. Hopefully, recently published scientific society consensus statements will lead to an improvement in physicians’ practice. The survey highlights that there is an unmet need for dedicated courses, particularly for ultrasound-guided vessel puncture. Abstract Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implants and electrophysiological procedures share a common step: vascular access. On behalf of the AIAC Ricerca Investigators’ Network, we conducted a survey to outline Italian common practice regarding vascular access in EP-lab. All Italian physicians with experience in CIED implantation and electrophysiology were invited to answer an online questionnaire (from May 2020 to November 2020) featuring 20 questions. In total, 103 cardiologists (from 92 Italian hospitals) answered the survey. Vascular access during CIED implants was considered the most complex step following lead placement by 54 (52.4%) respondents and the most complex for 35 (33.9%). In total, 54 (52.4%) and 49 (47.6%) respondents considered the cephalic and subclavian vein the first option, respectively (intrathoracic and extrathoracic subclavian/axillary vein by 22 and 27, respectively). In total, 45 (43.7%) respondents performed close arterial femoral accesses manually; only 12 (11.7%) respondents made extensive use of vascular closure devices. A total of 46 out of 103 respondents had experience in ultrasound-guided vascular accesses, but only 10 (22%) used it for more than 50% of the accesses. In total, 81 (78.6%) respondents wanted to increase their ultrasound-guided vascular access skills. Reducing complications is a goal to reach in cardiac stimulation and electrophysiological procedures. Our survey shows the heterogeneity of the vascular approaches used in Italian centres. Some vascular accesses were proved to be superior to others in terms of complications, with ultrasound-guided puncture as an emerging technique. More effort to produce the standardization of vascular accesses could be made by scientific societies.

[1]  C. Lau,et al.  EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS , 2021, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[2]  C. Polanczyk,et al.  Axillary vein puncture guided by ultrasound versus cephalic vein dissection in pacemaker and defibrillator implant: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. , 2020, Heart Rhythm.

[3]  A. Natale,et al.  Subclavian and Axillary Vein Access Versus Cephalic Vein Cutdown for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Meta-Analysis. , 2020, JACC. Clinical electrophysiology.

[4]  S. Hohnloser,et al.  Cephalic vs. subclavian lead implantation in cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2018, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[5]  Vincent J. Noori,et al.  A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites , 2018, Journal of vascular surgery.

[6]  P. Moceri,et al.  Self-taught axillary vein access without venography for pacemaker implantation: prospective randomized comparison with the cephalic vein access , 2017, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[7]  Michael E. Matheny,et al.  Registry‐Based Prospective, Active Surveillance of Medical‐Device Safety , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  N. Chan,et al.  Venous access and long-term pacemaker lead failure: comparing contrast-guided axillary vein puncture with subclavian puncture and cephalic cutdown , 2016, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[9]  R. Charnigo,et al.  Predictors, Morbidity, and Costs Associated with Pneumothorax during Electronic Cardiac Device Implantation , 2016, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[10]  Dick M. Goedhart,et al.  Relationship Between Femoral Vascular Closure Devices and Short-Term Mortality From 271 845 Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Procedures Performed in the United Kingdom Between 2006 and 2011: A Propensity Score–Corrected Analysis From the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  Y. Miao,et al.  Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials on the Safety of Vascular Closure Devices for Femoral Arterial Puncture Site Haemostasis , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[12]  Felix Yang,et al.  A new trick to a routine procedure: taking the fear out of the axillary vein stick using the 35° caudal view. , 2015, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[13]  C. Hengstenberg,et al.  Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. , 2014, JAMA.

[14]  A. Proclemer,et al.  Preferred tools and techniques for implantation of cardiac electronic devices in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. , 2013, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[15]  M. Driel,et al.  Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis , 2012 .

[16]  F. Monti,et al.  Permanent Pacing Lead Insertion Through the Cephalic Vein Using an Hydrophilic Guidewire , 2003, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[17]  H. Halperin,et al.  Prospective Randomized Comparison of the Safety and Effectiveness of Placement of Endocardial Pacemaker and Defibrillator Leads Using the Extrathoracic Subclavian Vein Guided by Contrast Venography Versus the Cephalic Approach , 2001, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[18]  S. Milstein,et al.  Anatomical Mechanisms Explaining Damage to Pacemaker Leads, Defibrillator Leads, and Failure of Central Venous Catheters Adjacent to the Sternoclavicular Joint , 1993, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.