Clinical trial NCT04382430: Ultrasound Axillary Vein Access: Evaluation of Learning Curve for an Alternative Approach to Cardiac Device Implantation
Official title: Ultrasound Axillary Vein Access: Evaluation of Learning Curve for an Alternative Approach to Cardiac Device Implantation
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Ultrasound Therapy; Complications
Cardiac Device Implant
Venous Access
Keywords: US Guided Venous access
Lead sponsor: University of Kansas Medical Center
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2020-05-11
Enrollment: 100
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 90
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: The Study Group for this study will include 1 US experienced Electrophysiology (EP) attending, 4 US inexperienced EP attendings, and 1 US inexperienced EP fellow performing US cardiac device implantation (CDI). Each provider will perform 5 conventional CDI, 2 assisted US CDI to learn the procedure (except for experienced US attending), and 10 solo US CDI for a total of 17 procedures per provider (15 for experienced US attending). 100 patients will be needed for this study. This study will take approximately 16 weeks to complete.
Primary purpose: SUPPORTIVE_CARE

Brief summary: 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.

Detailed description: 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.

Eligibility criteria: 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.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Venous access time between US guided and conventional technique
timeFrame: During procedure
measure: Time spent for pocket creation between US guided venous access technique and conventional technique.
timeFrame: During procedure
measure: Time spent to obtain venous access & pocket creation between experienced and inexperienced physicians.
timeFrame: During procedure
measure: To assess 30 day post procedure complications
timeFrame: 30 Day post procedure
measure: Assess acute procedural success between two techniques.
timeFrame: During procedure
Secondary outcomes:
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Kansas City
country: United States
facility: University of Kansas Medical Center
state: Kansas
Study officials:
affiliation: University of Kansas Medical Center
name: Seth Sheldon, MD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Ramza BM, Rosenthal L, Hui R, Nsah E, Savader S, Lawrence JH, Tomaselli G, Berger R, Brinker J, Calkins H. Safety and effectiveness of placement of pacemaker and defibrillator leads in the axillary vein guided by contrast venography. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Oct 1;80(7):892-6. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00542-0.
citation: Kim KH, Park KM, Nam GB, Kim DK, Oh M, Choi H, Hong TJ, Park BM, Seo GW, Song PS, Kim DK, Seol SH, Kim DI, Kim YH, Choi KJ. Comparison of the axillary venous approach and subclavian venous approach for efficacy of permanent pacemaker implantation. 8-Year follow-up results. Circ J. 2014;78(4):865-71. doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-13-0884. Epub 2014 Mar 3.
citation: Squara F, Tomi J, Scarlatti D, Theodore G, Moceri P, Ferrari E. Self-taught axillary vein access without venography for pacemaker implantation: prospective randomized comparison with the cephalic vein access. Europace. 2017 Dec 1;19(12):2001-2006. doi: 10.1093/europace/euw363.
citation: Esmaiel A, Hassan J, Blenkhorn F, Mardigyan V. The Use of Ultrasound to Improve Axillary Vein Access and Minimize Complications during Pacemaker Implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016 May;39(5):478-82. doi: 10.1111/pace.12833. Epub 2016 Mar 23.
citation: Jones DG, Stiles MK, Stewart JT, Armstrong GP. Ultrasound-guided venous access for permanent pacemaker leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006 Aug;29(8):852-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00451.x.
citation: Seto AH, Jolly A, Salcedo J. Ultrasound-guided venous access for pacemakers and defibrillators. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013 Mar;24(3):370-4. doi: 10.1111/jce.12005. Epub 2012 Nov 6.
citation: Lin J, Adsit G, Barnett A, Tattersall M, Field ME, Wright J. Feasibility of ultrasound-guided vascular access during cardiac implantable device placement. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2017 Oct;50(1):105-109. doi: 10.1007/s10840-017-0273-3. Epub 2017 Jul 27.
citation: Liccardo M, Nocerino P, Gaia S, Ciardiello C. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided axillary/subclavian venous approaches for pacemaker and defibrillator lead implantation: a randomized study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018 Mar;51(2):153-160. doi: 10.1007/s10840-018-0313-7. Epub 2018 Jan 15.