Implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices using three leads by cephalic vein dissection approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Percutaneous subclavian, axillary, and cephalic vein access are all used in conjunction for atrial and ventricular lead implantation, though no standard approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation has been established. We describe an effective and a safe technique for implanting three leads via cephalic vein for CRT pacemaker and/or defibrillator implantations. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 171 consecutive patients undergoing de novo implantation of CRT pacemaker or defibrillator were included. Cephalic vein access was achieved by dissection and direct visualization. If the cephalic vein was inadequate, alternate means of access was determined after outset of the procedure. Procedural success rates and complications were recorded. Of the 171 de novo CRT implant attempts, 169 (98.8%) patients had successful implantation of all 3 leads on the first attempt. Of the 171 procedural attempts, 150 (87.7%) patients had all 3 leads placed via cephalic vein. Overall, complications occurred in 6 of 171 patients (3.5%) including initial and repeat procedures. These complications included seven lead dislodgements, two cases of diaphragmatic stimulation requiring lead revision, and one coronary sinus dissection without pericardial effusion. There were no cases of pneumothorax, pocket haematoma requiring evacuation, or infection. CONCLUSION: The triple lead via cephalic vein technique is safe and effective when used as a first approach for CRT device implantation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".