Venous access and long-term pacemaker lead failure: Comparing contrast-guided axillary vein puncture with subclavian puncture and cephalic cutdown

Abstract

Aims Existing data on the relationship between venous access and long-term pacemaker lead failure (PLF) are scarce and inconsistent. We aim to study the hypothesis that contrast-guided axillary vein puncture (AP) is better than subclavian puncture (SP) and similar to cephalic vein cutdown (CV) in the incidence of PLF and the success rate of AP is higher than CV. Methods and results The case records of 409 patients with 681 implantable pacemaker leads were reviewed. Two hundred and fifty-two, 217, and 212 leads were implanted via AP, CV, and SP, respectively. With a mean follow-up of 73.6 ± 33.1 months, 20 (2.9%) PLF occurred. Three (1.2%), 5 (2.3%), and 12 (5.6%) PLF occurred in the AP, CV, and SP groups, respectively. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, the only independent predictor for PLF was the use of SP instead of AP (AP vs. SP; hazard ratio: 0.261; 95% confidence interval: 0.071-0.954, P = 0.042). The success rate of CV (78.2%) was significantly lower than those of AP (97.6%) and SP (96.8%) (P < 0.001). Conclusion Compared with SP, the use of AP but not CV independently predicted a lower risk of PLF. The success rates in achieving venous accesses were similar between AP and SP, but significantly lower for CV. Axillary vein puncture may thus be considered the venous access of choice for pacemaker lead implantation.