Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

---

Abstract Background and Aim: The first step in implanting pacemaker is finding a suitable venous way. We can pass the lead through cutting down the cephalic vein or external jugular or even the internal jugular. It is also possible to locate a larger vein through skin and pass the lead though it after making a fissure in it. The aim of this study is comparing two methods of implanting pacemaker through subclavian vein and cutting down the cephalic vein in deltopectoral pathway concerning short-term side effects. Materials and Methods: From early 1997 up to the end of 2001, 352 patients were provided with permanent pacemaker. After the analysis of these patients they were divided into two groups: In group A including 164 patients (46.6%) the pacemaker was implanted through subclavian and in group B including 188 patients (53.4%), the cutting down cephalic vein method was used .The results were compared by statistical analysis of side effects of these two methods. Results: Pneumothorax was seen in one case of group A (0.6%) patients. There was injury infection in a patient from group A (0. 6%) and two patients from group B (106%). A case of generator displacement was also seen in each group. There was neither case of air embolism nor the damage to the veins. Conclusion: The study shows that although there is no remarkable statistical difference between the two groups concerning the individual side-effect, the subclavian vein method had more side effects than the cut down cephalic vein which is statistically remarkable when collective side-effects are concerned.

Keywords: Pace maker; sub-clavian vein; Cephalic vein

Full-Text [DOC 77 kb]   (4702 Downloads)