English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation is associated with severe complications including pneumo- and hemothorax. Data on a sole cephalic vein approach (sCV), potentially preventing these complications, are limited. The aim of our study was to compare a sole cSV with a subclavian vein approach (SV) in CRT implantations with respect to feasibility and safety. We performed a prospective cohort study enrolling twenty-four consecutive  de-novo  CRT implantations (group A) using a sCV at two centers. Fifty-four age-matched CRT patients implanted via the SV served (group B) as reference. Procedural success rate and complications were recorded during a follow-up of 4 weeks. All CRTs could be implanted in group A, with 91.7% using cephalic access alone. In group B, CRT implantation was successfully performed in 96.3%. Procedure and fluoroscopy duration were similar for both groups (sCV vs. SV: 119 ± 45 vs. 106 ± 31 minutes, 17 ± 9 vs 14 ± 9 minutes). Radiation dosage was higher in sCV group vs. SV (2984 ± 2370 vs. 1580 ± 1316 cGy*cm 2 ; p = 0.001). There was no case of a pneumothorax in group of sCV, while two cases were observed using SV. Overall complication rate was similar (sCV: 13.0% vs. SV: 12.5%).  de-novo  CRT implantation using a triple cephalic vein approach is feasible. Procedure duration and complication rates were similar, while radiation dosage was higher in the sCV compared to the SV approach. Despite its feasibility in the clinical routine, controlled prospective studies with longer follow-up are required to elucidate a potential benefit with respect to lead longevity.

Triple lead cephalic versus subclavian vein approach in cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation