Abstract 4365686: Outcomes of Supraclavicular Access in Temporary Pacemaker Implantation

Background: Temporary pacemakers (TPM) are often placed using femoral, jugular, or subclavian veins, but these approaches have risks like pneumothorax or lead dislodgement. The supraclavicular route may offer a safer alternative, but data is limited. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we assessed 3,569 patients who got a TPM at a tertiary hospital (2020–2024). Of these, 1,644 had supraclavicular access, and 1,925 had infraclavicular access. We compared success rates, complications, and procedure times. Data came from medical records, and all analyses were performed using SPSS v26. Results: The study compared outcomes between supraclavicular (n=1,644) and infraclavicular (n=1,925) approaches for temporary pacemaker implantation in 3,569 patients. Baseline characteristics were well-matched between groups, with similar age (63.7 vs 64.1 years), sex distribution (56.3% vs 55.7% male), and comorbidity profiles (all p>0.05). The supraclavicular approach demonstrated superior safety outcomes, with significantly lower overall complication rates (9.3% vs 14.8%, p<0.001), including reduced arterial puncture (2.0% vs 4.2%), pneumothorax (0.3% vs 1.1%), lead dislodgement (4.5% vs 6.8%), and hematoma formation (1.5% vs 2.7%). Multivariate analysis identified supraclavicular access as independently protective against complications (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.73), along with younger age and normal renal function. Procedural efficiency favored the supraclavicular approach, with shorter mean procedure times (24.6 vs 29.1 minutes, p<0.001) and higher first-attempt success rates (89.4% vs 83.2%, p<0.001). Predictive modeling showed excellent discrimination for complications (AUC 0.73), while survival analysis confirmed prolonged complication-free intervals with supraclavicular access (log-rank p=0.01). Conclusion: Supraclavicular access for TPM is safer, faster, and more successful than the traditional infraclavicular approach. It should be considered as a first-choice method, especially in emergencies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4365686
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4365686: Outcomes of Supraclavicular Access in Temporary Pacemaker Implantation

Saifullah Khan, Javeria Khan, Yusra Amanullah, Silvia Ramzy et al.
Circulation
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Abstract 4365686: Outcomes of Supraclavicular Access in Temporary Pacemaker Implantation

Saifullah Khan, Javeria Khan, Yusra Amanullah, Silvia Ramzy, Jahanzeb Malik, Khadija Amanullah, Rabiah Javaid, Mubaraka Amanullah
article en

Abstract

Background: Temporary pacemakers (TPM) are often placed using femoral, jugular, or subclavian veins, but these approaches have risks like pneumothorax or lead dislodgement. The supraclavicular route may offer a safer alternative, but data is limited. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we assessed 3,569 patients who got a TPM at a tertiary hospital (2020–2024). Of these, 1,644 had supraclavicular access, and 1,925 had infraclavicular access. We compared success rates, complications, and procedure times. Data came from medical records, and all analyses were performed using SPSS v26. Results: The study compared outcomes between supraclavicular (n=1,644) and infraclavicular (n=1,925) approaches for temporary pacemaker implantation in 3,569 patients. Baseline characteristics were well-matched between groups, with similar age (63.7 vs 64.1 years), sex distribution (56.3% vs 55.7% male), and comorbidity profiles (all p>0.05). The supraclavicular approach demonstrated superior safety outcomes, with significantly lower overall complication rates (9.3% vs 14.8%, p<0.001), including reduced arterial puncture (2.0% vs 4.2%), pneumothorax (0.3% vs 1.1%), lead dislodgement (4.5% vs 6.8%), and hematoma formation (1.5% vs 2.7%). Multivariate analysis identified supraclavicular access as independently protective against complications (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.73), along with younger age and normal renal function. Procedural efficiency favored the supraclavicular approach, with shorter mean procedure times (24.6 vs 29.1 minutes, p<0.001) and higher first-attempt success rates (89.4% vs 83.2%, p<0.001). Predictive modeling showed excellent discrimination for complications (AUC 0.73), while survival analysis confirmed prolonged complication-free intervals with supraclavicular access (log-rank p=0.01). Conclusion: Supraclavicular access for TPM is safer, faster, and more successful than the traditional infraclavicular approach. It should be considered as a first-choice method, especially in emergencies.

CirculationVol. 152(Suppl_3)
Khyber Medical College (PK), Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (PK), Franciscan Health (US), Army Medical College (PK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.