University of Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City, Kansas, 66160, United States
NCT Number: NCT04382430
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.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–90 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Kansas City, Kansas, 66160, United States
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.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
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.
Physician will perform 5 cardiac device implant using conventional technique of venous access and pocket creation
Time frame: During procedure
Assess changes in venous access and pocket creation time with progressive experience with US guided axillary venous access (learning curve).
Time frame: During procedure
Compare the pocket creation time with US guided axillary venous access versus conventional techniques.
Time frame: During procedure
Compare venous access and pocket creation time amongst experienced and inexperienced physicians.
Time frame: 30 Day post procedure
Assess 30-day complications between 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.
University of Kansas Medical Center
Other
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.
NCT03144895
Intensive Care Unit, Ultrasound Therapy; Complications
Amiens, Picardie, France
View Trial DetailsNCT06241716
Ultrasound Therapy; Complications
Wuhan, Hubei, China
View Trial DetailsNCT06753552
Rheumatoid Arthritis of Ankle, Ultrasound Therapy; Complications
Kırşehir, Ahi Evran, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial DetailsNCT06125678
Computed Tomography, Crohn Disease
Hyderabad, Telangana, India
View Trial Details