These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Intra-pocket ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture vs. cephalic vein cutdown for cardiac electronic device implantation: the ACCESS trial. Charles P; Ditac G; Montoy M; Thenard T; Courand PY; Lantelme P; Harbaoui B; Fareh S Eur Heart J; 2023 Dec; 44(46):4847-4858. PubMed ID: 37832512 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Different venous approaches for implantation of cardiac electronic devices. A network meta-analysis. Anagnostopoulos I; Kossyvakis C; Kousta M; Verikokkou C; Lakka E; Karakanas A; Deftereos G; Spanou P; Giotaki S; Vrachatis D; Avramidis D; Deftereos S; Giannopoulos G Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2022 Jun; 45(6):717-725. PubMed ID: 35554947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cephalic vs. subclavian lead implantation in cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Benz AP; Vamos M; Erath JW; Hohnloser SH Europace; 2019 Jan; 21(1):121-129. PubMed ID: 30020452 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports. Hsu CC; Kwan GN; Evans-Barns H; Rophael JA; van Driel ML Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2016 Aug; 2016(8):CD008942. PubMed ID: 27544827 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Ultrasound-Guided Venous Axillary Access Versus Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation: ZEROFLUOROAXI Randomized Trial. Vitali F; Malagù M; Bianchi N; De Raffele M; Manfrini M; Gibiino F; Boccadoro A; Azzolini G; Balla C; Bertini M JACC Clin Electrophysiol; 2024 Mar; 10(3):554-565. PubMed ID: 38243998 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cephalic Vein Cutdown Is Superior to Subclavian Puncture as Venous Access for Patients with Cardiac Implantable Devices after Long-Term Follow-Up. Knorr D; Bandorski D; Bogossian H; Iliodromitis K; Schiedat F; Karosiene Z; Mijic D; Lemke B; Seyfarth M; Voß S; Knippschild S; Aweimer A; Zarse M; Kloppe A; Botsios S J Clin Med; 2024 Feb; 13(4):. PubMed ID: 38398357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Venous access and long-term pacemaker lead failure: comparing contrast-guided axillary vein puncture with subclavian puncture and cephalic cutdown. Chan NY; Kwong NP; Cheong AP Europace; 2017 Jul; 19(7):1193-1197. PubMed ID: 27733455 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. How to perform extrathoracic venous access for cardiac implantable electronic device placement: Detailed description of techniques. Su J; Kusumoto FM; Zhou X; Elayi CS Heart Rhythm; 2022 Jul; 19(7):1184-1191. PubMed ID: 35231611 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Safety and Efficiency of Cephalic Vein Puncture by Modified Seldinger Technique Compared to Subclavian Vein Puncture for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices. Weidauer MC; Knüpfer E; Lottermoser J; Alkomi U; Schoen S; Wunderlich C; Christoph M; Francke A Clin Cardiol; 2024 Aug; 47(8):e24327. PubMed ID: 39077849 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Body mass index is related to unsuccessful puncture attempts and failure to axillary vein cannulation during ultrasound-guided cardiac electronic device implantation. De Sensi F; Addonisio L; Baratta P; Breschi M; Cresti A; Miracapillo G; Limbruno U J Interv Card Electrophysiol; 2021 Aug; 61(2):253-259. PubMed ID: 32572722 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Perioperative complications after pacemaker implantation: higher complication rates with subclavian vein puncture than with cephalic vein cutdown. Hasan F; Nedios S; Karosiene Z; Scholten M; Lemke B; Tulka S; Knippschild S; Macher-Heidrich S; Adomeit HJ; Zarse M; Bogossian H J Interv Card Electrophysiol; 2023 Jun; 66(4):857-863. PubMed ID: 35107720 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Vasoconstrictive responses of the cephalic vein during first-time cardiac implantable electronic device placement. Steckiewicz R; Świętoń EB; Bogdańska M; Stolarz P Folia Morphol (Warsz); 2018; 77(3):464-470. PubMed ID: 29345717 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Optimized Axillary Vein Technique versus Subclavian Vein Technique in Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Randomized Controlled Study. Liu P; Zhou YF; Yang P; Gao YS; Zhao GR; Ren SY; Li XL Chin Med J (Engl); 2016 Nov; 129(22):2647-2651. PubMed ID: 27823994 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Fluoroscopy-guided axillary vein access vs cephalic vein access in pacemaker and defibrillator implantation: Randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety. Jiménez-Díaz J; Higuera-Sobrino F; Piqueras-Flores J; Pérez-Díaz P; González-Marín MA J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 2019 Sep; 30(9):1588-1593. PubMed ID: 31310038 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Ultrasound-guided access to the axillary vein for implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. D'Arrigo S; Perna F; Annetta MG; Pittiruti M J Vasc Access; 2023 Jul; 24(4):854-863. PubMed ID: 34724839 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous subclavian vein puncture versus surgical venous cutdown for the insertion of a totally implantable venous access device. Orci LA; Meier RP; Morel P; Staszewicz W; Toso C Br J Surg; 2014 Jan; 101(2):8-16. PubMed ID: 24276950 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Low incidence of complications after cephalic vein cutdown for pacemaker lead implantation in children weighing less than 10 kilograms: A single-center experience with long-term follow-up. Kircanski B; Vasic D; Savic D; Stojanov P Heart Rhythm; 2015 Aug; 12(8):1820-6. PubMed ID: 25916570 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]