Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04382430

Ultrasound Axillary Vein Access: Evaluation of Learning Curve for an Alternative Approach to Cardiac Device Implantation

The purpose of this study is to determine the learning curve associated with Ultrasound (US) guided axillary vein access for cardiac device implantation based on length of procedure among operators of various levels of experience and to assess the 30-day complication rate for patients undergoing US guided device placement versus traditional implant methods.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–90 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Kansas Medical Center

Kansas City, Kansas, 66160, United States

About this study

Ultrasound (US) guided axillary vein access for device implantation is an uncommon approach to gain venous access for cardiac device implantation - an extremely common procedure. However, there has been a growing trend of utilizing this approach to obtain venous access for device implantation among operators. Axillary vein access was described back as far as 1997, when it was utilized for contrast guided venipuncture to access the axillary vein for device implantation. Literature has suggested that an axillary venous approach, with either a superficial landmark or radiographic contrast, has better long-term efficacy and lower lead complications than a conventional subclavian approach for patients that had permanent pacemaker implantation. There are a variety of ways to access the axillary vein including contrast venography to help localization, "blind puncture" (utilizing fluoroscopy to identify anatomical landmarks), and US. More recently, operators have begun to utilize US guidance for axillary vein access. Esmaiel has described that US guidance for axillary vein access could potentially improve the success rate of venous access and limit complications. Others, albeit few, have reported US guided access for cardiac device implantation has the ability to reduce complications, is faster to complete, and easier to learn. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in the United States, US guided central venous catheter placement is one of the 11 patient safety practices that have the strongest evidence supporting its use in improving patient outcomes. Evidence supports US guidance being standard of care in central venous catheter placement and using US for axillary access as helpful in cardiac device implantation, but providers still utilize predominantly alternative approaches to obtain venous access via the subclavian vein, cephalic cutdown, extrathoracic axillary using fluoroscopy and thoracic axillary using fluoroscopy.

Currently, there is limited data describing outcomes, the efficiency of US guided axillary access for cardiac device implantation, and the learning curve associated with this technique. Data suggests that utilizing the US approach can improve outcomes, be more efficient, and be easier to learn. Investigators recently reported a high success (95%) and low complication rate with US guided axillary access in 187 patients. Despite this limited data, operators still largely use alternative approaches for venous access. In part, this may be due to the learning curve associated with US axillary venous access.

While there is data demonstrating the utility of US guided axillary access, there is little evidence showing the learning curve for operators associated with this technique. The aim of this project is to assess the learning curve of this technique among operators of various levels of experience.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Sign written Informed Consent Form.
  • ≥18 years of age up to 90 years old.
  • Eligible and referred for cardiac device implantation.
  • BMI < 35.

Exclusion criteria

  • Unable to sign consent.
  • Patient eligible for cardiac device upgrades/ extractions, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (SICD) & leadless devices.

Treatment and study plan

Ultrasound guided venous access

Procedure

Each physician/ provider will perform 2 assisted ultrasound (US) guided venous access and pocket creation for cardiac device implant and 10 solo ultrasound guided cardiac device implant.

Conventional technique

Procedure

Physician will perform 5 cardiac device implant using conventional technique of venous access and pocket creation

Primary outcomes

  1. Venous access time between US guided and conventional technique

    Time frame: During procedure

    Assess changes in venous access and pocket creation time with progressive experience with US guided axillary venous access (learning curve).

  2. Time spent for pocket creation between US guided venous access technique and conventional technique.

    Time frame: During procedure

    Compare the pocket creation time with US guided axillary venous access versus conventional techniques.

  3. Time spent to obtain venous access & pocket creation between experienced and inexperienced physicians.

    Time frame: During procedure

    Compare venous access and pocket creation time amongst experienced and inexperienced physicians.

  4. To assess 30 day post procedure complications

    Time frame: 30 Day post procedure

    Assess 30-day complications between techniques.

  5. Assess acute procedural success between two techniques.

    Time frame: During procedure

    Compare overall procedural success whether device was successfully placed or not post procedure between US guided axillary venous access & conventional technique. Success as Assigned- whether implant technique assigned was successful or whether had to switch to an alternative technique.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Kansas Medical Center

Other

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2020
Primary completion
2021
Study completion
2021
First posted
May 11, 2020
Registry last updated
Oct 4, 2021

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.