Abstract:BACKGROUND: Axillary vein puncture (AVP) and cephalic vein surgical cutdown are recommended in international guidelines because of their low risk of pneumothorax and chronic lead complications. Directly visualizing and puncturing the axillary vein under ultrasound guidance reduces radiation exposure, provides direct needle visualization, and lowers periprocedural complications. Our hypothesis is that ultrasound-guided axillary access is safer and more feasible than the standard fluoroscopic technique.OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided axillary venous access during cardiac lead implantation for pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations.METHODS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either axillary venous access under fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound-guided axillary venous access. The composite outcome, including pneumothorax, hemothorax, inadvertent arterial puncture, pocket hematoma, pocket infection, lead dislodgement, and death, was evaluated 30 days after implantation.RESULTS: We randomized 270 patients into 2 groups: the standard group for fluoroguided AVP (n = 134) and the experimental group for ultrasound-guided AVP (n = 136). No disparities in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. The median age of the patients was 81 years, with women comprising 41% of the population. The majority of patients received single- and dual-chamber PMs (87% vs 88%; P = 1.00), and slightly over 10% in both groups received ICDs (13% vs 12%; P = 0.85). In total, we placed 357 leads in PMs and 48 leads in ICDs. Among these, 295 leads were inserted via axillary vein access and 110 via cephalic vein access. Notably, the subclavian vein was never used as a vascular access. The composite outcome was lower in the ultrasound group according to intention-to-treat analysis (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31-0.99; P = 0.034). The main difference within the composite outcome was the lower incidence of inadvertent axillary arterial puncture in the experimental group (17% vs 6%; P = 0.004). The ultrasound group also exhibited lower total procedural x-ray exposure (10,344 μGy × cm<sup>2</sup> vs 7,119 μGy × cm<sup>2</sup>; P = 0.002) while achieving the same rate of success at the first attempt (61% vs 69%; P = 0.375).CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided AVP is safer than the fluoroscopy-guided approach because it achieves the same rate of acute success while maintaining low total procedural radiation exposure. Ultrasound AVP should be considered the optimal venous access method for cardiac lead implantation. (Ultrasound Guided Axillary Access vs Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation [ZEROFLUOROAXI]; NCT05101720).

Caudal fluoroscopic guidance for the insertion of transvenous pacing leads

Clinical Evaluation of the Use of an Intracardiac Electrocardiogram to Guide the Tip Positioning of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters

Ultrasound-Guided Venous Axillary Access Versus Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation

Axillary vein access using ultrasound guidance, Venography or Cephalic Cutdown—What is the optimal access technique for insertion of pacing leads?

Caudal-Tilt Ultrasound Guided Axillary Venous Access for Transvenous Pacing Lead Implant

Safety and Efficiency of Cephalic Vein Puncture by Modified Seldinger Technique Compared to Subclavian Vein Puncture for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cephalic Vein Cutdown Is Superior to Subclavian Puncture as Venous Access for Patients with Cardiac Implantable Devices after Long-Term Follow-Up

Intra-pocket ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture vs. cephalic vein cutdown for cardiac electronic device implantation: the ACCESS trial

Feasibility of ultrasound-guided axillary vein access for implantation of cardiac implantable electronic device leads

The Use of Subcostal Echocardiographic Views to Guide the Insertion of a Right Ventricular Temporary Transvenous Pacemaker-Description of the Technique

Ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided axillary vein puncture for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: a meta-analysis enrolling 1257 patients

Pacing Using Cardiac Implantable Electric Device During TAVR: 10-Year Experience of a High-Volume Center

P257 UNIQUE UNEXPECTED COURSE OF A S–ICD LEAD: DIAGNOSTIC CHALLENGES AND SAFE CLINICAL AND INTERVENTIONAL MANAGEMENT

Direct anchoring technique for pacing and defibrillation leads inserted through cephalic vein: insight for a single high-volume center

Ultrasound-guided Axillary Vein Puncture for Cardiac Device Implantation: A Safe and Effective Approach

Supraclavicular vein approach to overcoming ipsilateral chronic subclavian vein obstruction during pacemaker-ICD lead revision or upgrading

Comparison of Fluoroscopy and Transesophageal Echocardiogram for Intra-Procedure Device Surveillance Assessment During Implantation of Watchman

Outcomes of Temporary Pacing Using Active Fixation Leads and Externalized Permanent Pacemakers in Patients with Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection and Pacemaker Dependency

When and how to perform venoplasty for lead placement

Management of Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava: Overcoming Lead and Vascular Complications With Transcatheter Pacing System Implantation

Inadvertent intracoronary pacemaker lead implantation