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

Ultrasound-guided (Echo-AVP) and Fluoroscopy-guided Axillary Vein Puncture (Fluoro-AVP) are both acknowledged as safe and effective techniques for transvenous implantation of leads for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Nonetheless, it is still debated which of the two techniques has a better safety and efficacy profile. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP versus Fluoro-AVP for CIEDs implantation.

We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases up to May 15th, 2024, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary efficacy endpoint was acute procedural success and the primary safety endpoint was a composite endpoint of pneumothorax, pocket hematoma/bleeding, pocket infection and inadvertent arterial puncture. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Odds Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) with relative 95% Confidence Interval (CI).

Overall, 4 studies were included, which enrolled 1257 patients (Echo-AVP: 373 patients; Fluoro-AVP: 884 patients). Echo-AVP led to a significant reduction in the primary safety endpoint (OR: 0.41; p = 0.0009), risk of inadvertent arterial puncture (OR: 0.29; p = 0.003) and fluoroscopy time ( MD: -105.02; p = 0.008). No differences were found between Echo-AVP and Fluoro-AVP for acute procedural success (OR: 0.77; p = 0.27), pneumothorax (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), pocket hematoma/bleeding (OR: 0.68; p = 0.30), pocket infection (OR: 0.66; p = 0.60), procedural time (MD: 1.99; p = 0.65), success rate at first attempt (OR: 1.25; p = 0.34) and venous access time (MD: -0. 25; p = 0.99).

Echo-AVP proved to reduce significantly the primary safety endpoint, inadvertent arterial puncture and fluoroscopy time compared to Fluoro-AVP.