Left Ventricular Lead Implantation Research Articles

Why Is the Group of Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy so Large? Some Ethical and Medical Aspects of the Topic

The aim of this single centre study (“St. Ekaterina” Hospital) is to assess the effect of a second successful cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients who had already had an unsuccessful implantation of a CRT system at other medical centres in Bulgaria and were defined as “non-responders”. This is a prospective observational study. The patients have previously had an unsuccessful implantation of a left ventricular (LV) lead or the latter has not been placed in the target vessel. After the successful implantation of a new LV lead in another target vessel, the post-procedure criteria for echocardiographic (EchoCG) and clinical response were monitored. Over the period 2017–2019, 18 CRT systems have been implanted in 18 patients with an average age 65±1 years with initial heart failure (HF) according to the Classification of the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III. The average LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was 28±1%. After the successful implantation of a new LV lead, patients presented with HF class II–III and LVEF 36±1%. In the new “upgrading” procedure, 15 patients (83%) had a good clinical and EchoCG response, and two of those 15 patients were “super responders”. The remaining three patients (17%) were “poor responders”. After the good clinical and echocardiographic response to the therapy with a second successful implantation of a LV lead in another target vessel, an important question arises, whether all “non-responders” to the CRT are actually supposed to be defined as such.

Is interventional technique better than the traditional over-the-wire method for left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy?

BackgroundInterventional-cardiac resynchronization therapy (I-CRT) for left ventricular lead (LVL) placement works as a supplement to the traditional over-the-wire-technique (T-CRT). It has been argued that I-CRT is a time-consuming and complicated procedure. ObjectiveTo investigate differences in procedure-related, peri- and post-operative and clinical endpoints between I-CRT and T-CRT. MethodThis single-center retrospective cohort-study included all consecutive patients receiving a CRT-pacemaker/defibrillator between January 1, 2012, and August 31, 2018. Patients underwent T-CRT from January 1, 2012, till June 1, 2015, and I-CRT from January 1, 2016, till August 31, 2018. We obtained data from patient-record-files, fluoroscopies and the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register. Data were analysed using Wilcoxon-rank-sum/linear regression for continuous variables and Pearson’s Chi-squared/Fisher’s exact for categorical variables. ResultsAn optimal LVL-placement was achieved in 82.7% in the I-CRT and 76.8% in the T-CRT group, respectively (p=0.015). In the I-CRT group 99.0% of LVLs were quadripolar versus 55.3% in the T-CRT group (p<0.001). Two or more leads were used during the procedure in 0.7% and 10.5% of all cases in the I-CRT and T-CRT group, respectively (p<0.001). Total implantation time was 81.0 min in the I-CRT group and 83.0 min in the T-CRT group (p=0.41). Time with catheters in the coronary sinus was 45.0 min versus 37.0 min for the I-CRT and T-CRT group, respectively (p<0.001). ConclusionI-CRT did not prolong total implantation time despite longer time with catheters in the CS. Additionally, I-CRT allowed more optimal LVL-placement, wider usage of quadripolar leads and fewer leads used during the procedure.

Retrograde Pull-through Approach with Double Guiding Catheters When Antegrade Left Ventricular Lead Implantation Is Infeasible

Retrograde Pull-through Approach with Double Guiding Catheters When Antegrade Left Ventricular Lead Implantation Is Infeasible

Left ventricular lead implantation failure in an unselected nationwide cohort

Left ventricular (LV) lead implantation is often the most challenging aspect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) procedures; early studies reported implant failure rates in ∼10% of cases. The purpose of this study was to define rates, reasons for, and factors independently associated with LV lead implant failure. We studied patients with left bundle branch block and ejection fraction ≤ 35% who underwent planned de novo transvenous CRT implantation (2010-2016) and were reported to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Independent predictors of LV lead implant failure were determined using logistic regression; age, sex, and variables with a univariate P value of <.15 were considered for inclusion in the model. Of the 111,802 patients who underwent a planned CRT procedure, 3.6% of patients (n = 3979) had LV lead implant failure. Reasons for implant failure included venous access (7.5%), coronary sinus access (64.3%), tributary vein access (13.5%), coronary sinus dissection (7.6%), unacceptable threshold (4.4%), and diaphragmatic stimulation (1.7%). Significant independent predictors of LV lead implant failure included younger age (odds ratio [OR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1.01-1.02), female sex (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.29-1.47), black race (vs white, OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.32-1.57), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.08-1.40), QRS duration (OR 1.055 per 10 ms; 95% CI 1.038-1.072 per 10 ms), obstructive sleep apnea (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04-1.24), and implant by a physician without specialized training (vs electrophysiology trained, OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.34-1.76). LV lead implant failure is uncommon in the current era and is most commonly due to coronary sinus access failure. Predictors of LV lead implant failure included younger age, female sex, black race, Hispanic ethnicity, increased QRS duration, sleep apnea, and absence of electrophysiology training.

Surgical Left Ventricular Lead Implantation for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy is Associated With No Radiation Exposure or Mortality, With Exceptional Long-Term Survival and Epicardial Lead Outcomes

Surgical epicardial lead implantation is used in patients with complex vascular access for pacing and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Data regarding safety and durability of epicardial pacing systems in this context are scarce.

Minimally invasive epicardial left-ventricular lead implantation and simultaneous left atrial appendage closure.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with heart failure resulting in a high prevalence of AF in patients receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) implantation. In patients, unsuitable for transvenous left ventricular (LV)-lead implantation, epicardial LV-lead implantation represents a valuable alternative. Epicardial LV-lead placement can be achieved totally thoracoscopical or via minimally invasive left lateral thoracotomy. In patients with atrial fibrillation, concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) clipping is feasible via the same access. Therefore, the aim of our study was the analysis of safety and efficacy of epicardial LV lead implantation and concomitant LAA clipping via minimally invasive left-lateral thoracotomy. Between December 2019 and March 2022, 8 patients received minimally invasive left atrial LV-lead implantation with concomitant LAA closure using the AtriClip. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed to intraoperatively guide and control LAA closure. Mean patients age was 64 ± 11.2 years, 67% were male patients. Minimally invasive left-lateral thoracotomy was used in 6 patients while a totally thoracoscopic approach was performed in 2 cases. Epicardial lead implantation was successfully performed in all patients with good pacing threshold (mean 0.8 ± 0.2 V) and sensing values (10.1 ± 2.3 mV). Posterolateral position of the LV lead was achieved in all patients. Furthermore, successful LAA closure was confirmed during TEE in all patients. No procedure-related complications occurred in any of the patients. Two patients additionally received simultaneous laser lead extraction during the same procedure. Complete lead extraction was achieved in both patients. All patients were extubated in the OR and had an uneventful postoperative course. Our study highlights a novel treatment approach for patients with atrial fibrillation and the necessity of epicardial LV leads. Placement of a posterolateral LV lead position with concomitant occlusion of the left atrial appendage via a minimally-invasive left-lateral thoracotomy or even a totally thoracoscopic approach is safe and feasible with superior cosmetic result and complete occlusion of the left atrial appendage.

Effect of Li's catheter in the cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation

Objective: To evaluate the effect of Li's catheter in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation. Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort study. Patients with indications for CRT implantation who visited the Department of Cardiology, Peking University People's Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2022 were enrolled. Patients were divided into Li's catheter group (CRT implantation with Li's catheter) and control group (CRT implantation with the traditional method). The general clinical data of the patients were obtained through the electronic medical record system. Li's catheter is a new type of coronary sinus angiography balloon catheter independently developed by Dr. Li Xuebin (patent number: 201320413174.1). The primary outcome was the success rate of CRT device implantation, and the secondary outcomes included efficacy and safety parameters. Efficacy indicators included operation time, coronary sinus angiography time, left ventricular lead implantation time, X-ray exposure time, left ventricular lead threshold, and diaphragm stimulation. Safety outcomes included incidence of coronary sinus dissection, cardiac tamponade, and pericardial effusion. Results: A total of 170 patients were enrolled in this study, including 90 in Li's catheter group and 80 in control group. Age, male proportion of patients, proportion of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal insufficiency, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, proportion of left bundle branch block, and preoperative QRS wave width were similar between the two groups (all P>0.05). In Li's catheter group, 34 cases (37.8%) implanted with CRT defibrillators, and 28 cases (35.0%) implanted with CRT defibrillators in control group, the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.710). The success rate of CRT device implantation in Li's catheter group was 100% (90/90), which was significantly higher than that in control group (93.8%, 75/80, P=0.023).The operation time was 57.0 (52.0, 62.3) minutes, the time to complete coronary sinus angiography was 8.0 (6.0, 9.0) minutes, and the time of left ventricular electrode implantation was 8.0 (7.0, 9.0) minutes in Li's catheter group, and was 91.3 (86.3, 97.0), 18.0 (16.0, 20.0), 25.0 (22.0, 27.7) minutes respectively in control group, all significantly shorter in Li's catheter group (all P<0.05). The exposure time of X-ray was 15.0 (14.0, 17.0) minutes in Li's catheter group, which was also significantly shorter than that in control group (32.5 (29.0, 36.0) minutes, P<0.001). There was no coronary sinus dissection and cardiac tamponade in Li's catheter group, and 1 patient (1.1%) had diaphragmatic stimulation in Li's catheter group. In control group, 6 patients (6.7%) had coronary sinus dissection, and 1 patient (1.1%) developed pericardial effusion, and 3 patients (3.3%) had diaphragmatic stimulation. The incidence of coronary sinus dissection in Li's catheter group was significantly lower than that in control group (P=0.011). The postoperative left ventricular thresholds in Li's catheter group and control group were similar (1.80 (1.60, 2.38) V/0.5 ms vs. 1.80 (1.60, 2.40) V/0.5 ms, P=0.120). Conclusions: Use of Li's catheter is associated with higher success rate of CRT implantation, short time of coronary sinus angiography and left ventricular electrode implantation, reduction of intraoperative X-ray exposure, and lower incidence of coronary vein dissection in this patient cohort.

Study of coronary sinus anatomy during levophase of coronary angiography.

BACKGROUNDCoronary sinus (CS) imaging has recently gained importance due to increasing need for mapping and ablation of electrophysiological arrhythmias and left ventricular (LV) pacing during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Retrograde venogram is the current standard for imaging CS and its tributaries. AIMTo evaluate CS anatomy during levophase of routine coronary angiography to aid LV lead implantation during CRT.METHODSIn this prospective observational study, 164 patients undergoing routine coronary angiography for various indications (Chronic stable angina-44.5%, acute coronary syndrome- 39.5%, Dilated cardiomyopathy-11%, atypical chest pain-5%) were included. Venous phase (levophase) of left coronary injection was recorded in left anterior oblique - cranial and right anterior oblique -cranial views. Visibility of coronary veins, width and shape of CS ostium, angulations of proximal CS with body of CS were noted. Presence, size, take-off angle and tortuosity of posterolateral vein (PLV), anterior interventricular veins (AIV) and middle cardiac vein (MCV) were also noted.RESULTSDuring levophase, visibility grade (Muhlenbruch grade) for coronary veins was 3 in 74% and 2 in 26% of cases. Visibility of CS did not correlate with body mass index. The diameter of CS ostium was < 10 mm, 10-15 mm and > 15 mm in 48%, 42% and 10% of patients respectively. Proximal CS was tubular in 136 (83%) patients and funnel-shaped in 28 (17%) patients. Sharp take-off angulation between ostium and body of CS was seen in 16 (10%) patients. Two or more PLV were present in 8 patients while PLV was absent in 52 (32%) patients. Angle of take-off of PLV with body of CS was favourable (0°-45°) in 65 (40%) patients. The angle was 45°-90° in 36 patients and difficult take-off angle (> 90°) was seen in 8 patients. Length of PLV reached distal third of myocardium in 84 cases and middle third in 11 cases. There was no tortuosity in 79 cases, a single bend in 29 cases and more than 2 bends in 4 cases. Thirty nine (24%) patients had other veins supplying posterior/Lateral wall of LV. There was a single vein supplying lateral/posterior wall in 31 (19%) patients. Diameter of MCV and AIV was significantly larger in patients with absent PLV as compared to patients with a PLV. CONCLUSIONLevophase study of left coronary injection is effective in visualization of the CS in almost all patients undergoing coronary angiography and may be an effective alternative to retrograde venogram in patients with LV dysfunction or LBBB.

A Novel Approach for Repetitive Dislocation of Transvenous Left Ventricular Leads During Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantation by the Loop Technique.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for heart failure requires transvenous insertion of a left ventricular pacing lead through the coronary sinus. However, repeated intraoperative dislocations often occur. Therefore, we describe a novel technique that uses the loop technique to treat patients with repeated intraoperative dislocations during transvenous left ventricular lead implantation to stabilize the lead in its final position. In five patients with repeated intraoperative dislocation during transvenous left ventricular lead implantation, the loop technique was successfully used to stabilize the lead in its final position. The pacing and sensing parameters were satisfactory in all patients at implantation and 12 months post-operatively. Compared with the pre-operative values, the 12-month post-operative values for the left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly increased and the left ventricular end systolic dimension and left ventricular end diastolic dimension were significantly decreased (P < 0.05). The left ventricular ejection fraction of these 5 patients increased by more than 15%. CRT significantly improved the left ventricular structure and function of these 5 patients. During the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, no left ventricular lead dislocations were observed. This loop technique is safe and effective and can be considered for repeated intraoperative dislocation during transvenous left ventricular lead implantation through the coronary sinus of a CRT device.

The combination of coronary sinus ostial atresia/abnormalities and a small persistent left superior vena cava—Opportunity for left ventricular lead implantation and unrecognized source of thromboembolic stroke

Coronary sinus (CS) ostial atresia/abnormalities prevent access to the CS from the right atrium (RA) for left ventricular (LV) lead implantation. Some patients with CS ostial abnormalities also have a small persistent left superior vena cava (sPLSVC). The purpose of this study was to describe CS ostial abnormalities and sPLSVC as an opportunity for LV lead implantation and unrecognized source of stroke. Twenty patients with CS ostial abnormalities and sPLSVC were identified. Clinical information, imaging methods, LV lead implantation techniques, and complications were summarized. Forty percent had at least 1 previously unsuccessful LV lead placement. In 70%, sPLSVC was identified by catheter manipulation and contrast injection in the left brachiocephalic vein, and in 30% by levophase CS venography. In 30%, sPLSVC was associated with drainage from the CS into the left atrium (LA). When associated with CS ostial abnormalities, the sPLSVC diameter averaged 5.6 ± 3 mm. sPLSVC was used for successful LV lead implantation in 90% of cases. In 80%, the LV lead was implanted down sPLSVC, and in 20%, sPLSVC was used to access the CS from the RA. Presumably because of unrecognized drainage from the CS to the LA, 1 patient had a stroke during implantation via sPLSVC. When CS ostial abnormalities prevent access to the CS from the RA, sPLSVC can be used to successfully implant LV leads. In some, the CS partially drains into the LA and stroke can occur spontaneously or during lead intervention. It is important to distinguish sPLSVC associated with CS ostial abnormalities from isolated PLSVC.

Feasibility of intraprocedural integration of cardiac CT to guide left ventricular lead implantation for CRT upgrades.

BackgroundOptimal positioning of the left ventricular (LV) lead is an important determinant of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response.ObjectiveEvaluate the feasibility of intraprocedural integration of cardiac computed tomography (CT) to guide LV lead implantation for CRT upgrades.MethodsPatients undergoing LV lead upgrade underwent ECG‐gated cardiac CT dyssynchrony and LV scar assessment. Target American Heart Association segment selection was determined using latest non‐scarred mechanically activating segments overlaid onto real‐time fluoroscopy with image co‐registration to guide optimal LV lead implantation. Hemodynamic validation was performed using a pressure wire in the LV cavity (dP/dtmax)).Results18 patients (male 94%, 55.6% ischemic cardiomyopathy) with RV pacing burden 60.0 ± 43.7% and mean QRS duration 154 ± 30 ms underwent cardiac CT. 10/10 ischemic patients had CT evidence of scar and these segments were excluded as targets. Seventeen out of 18 (94%) patients underwent successful LV lead implantation with delivery to the CT target segment in 15 out of 18 (83%) of patients. Acute hemodynamic response (dP/dtmax ≥ 10%) was superior with LV stimulation in CT target versus nontarget segments (83.3% vs. 25.0%; p = .012). Reverse remodeling at 6 months (LV end‐systolic volume improvement ≥15%) occurred in 60% of subjects (4/8 [50.0%] ischemic cardiomyopathy vs. 5/7 [71.4%] nonischemic cardiomyopathy, p = .608).ConclusionIntraprocedural integration of cardiac CT to guide optimal LV lead placement is feasible with superior hemodynamics when pacing in CT target segments and favorable volumetric response rates, despite a high proportion of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Multicentre, randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate whether intraprocedural integration of cardiac CT is superior to standard care.

Evaluation of the anatomical variations of the coronary venous system in patients with coronary artery calcification using 256-slice computed tomography.

The factors that determine the anatomical variations of the coronary venous system (CVS) are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate the anatomical variations of the CVS in patients with coronary artery calcification. 196 patients underwent non-contrast CT and coronary CT angiography using 256-slice CT. All subjects were divided into four groups based on their coronary artery calcium score (CACS): 50 patients with CACS = 0 Agatston unit (AU), 52 patients with CACS = 1–100 AU, 44 patients with CACS = 101–400 AU, and 50 patients with CACS > 400 AU. The presence of the following cardiac veins was evaluated: the coronary sinus (CS), great cardiac vein (GCV), posterior interventricular vein (PIV), posterior vein of the left ventricle (PVLV), left marginal vein (LMV), anterior interventricular vein (AIV), and small cardiac vein (SCV). Vessel diameters were also measured. We found that the CS, GCV, PIV, and AIV were visualized in all patients, whereas the PVLV and LMV were identified in a certain proportion of patients: 98% and 96% in the CACS = 0 AU group, 100% and 78.8% in the CACS = 1–100 AU group, 93.2% and 77.3% in the CACS = 101–400 AU group, and 98% and 78% in the CACS > 400 AU group, respectively. The LMV was less often identified in the last three groups than in the first group (p < 0.05). The frequency of having either one PVLV or LMV was higher in the last three groups than in the first group (p < 0.05). No significant differences in vessel diameters were observed between the groups. It was concluded that patients with coronary artery calcification were less likely to have the LMV, which might hamper the left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Abstract 13461: Longitudinal Evolution of Epicardial Pacing Leads

Introduction: Implantation of epicardial pacing leads remains a well-known alternative to the standard transvenous approach in several situations. However, long-term data on the performance and safety of epicardial pacing leads remain scarce. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary center including all patients with right or left ventricular epicardial lead implantation between 1996 to 2018; n=255. Electrophysiological lead parameters at implantation and during follow-up were analyzed and compared with clinical data from the electronic medical records. Results: 230 patients were included in the analysis. Implanted lead models included the Medtronic 4968 (n=202) and Medtronic 5071 (n=28). Indications for epicardial lead implantation included upgrade to CRT in 153/230 (67%) individuals and standard right or left ventricular pacing only in 76/230 (33%). Of the 153 epicardial CRT patients, 50 had a history of failed transvenous CRT and 103 had concomitant cardiac surgery for other indications and were thought to have a likely indication for CRT in the nearby future. Mean follow-up time was 4,7years±4,2. Lead impedances were significantly higher in the 4968 model compared to the 5071. Pacing thresholds for both lead models were similar at implantation but were subsequently significant higher in the 5071 model. Higher pacing thresholds in the 5071 model did not result in premature battery depletion. Periprocedural complications related to the epicardial lead insertion occurred in 3/230 patients. Epicardial lead related complications at follow-up remained low (8/230; 3 dysfunctions, 2 dislodgments, 1 impending skin erosion). There were only 2 cases of epicardial lead infections at follow-up requiring surgical extraction. 4,3% of all implanted leads remained unconnected at follow-up. Conclusions: Epicardial lead implantation for either CRT or pacing indications is a durable and safe alternative to transvenous lead insertion.

Central Sleep Apnea and Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy

The role of central sleep apnea (CSA) in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) remains speculative. In a prospective trial entitled UPGRADE, the presence of CSA was assessed by single-night polysomnography (PSG) in 54 PICM patients within 1 month after left ventricular lead implantation (with biventricular stimulation still not activated). CSA was diagnosed in half of patients (n = 27). Patients with moderate or severe CSA were randomized to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) versus right ventricular pacing (RVP) in a double-blinded cross-over design and re-scheduled for a follow-up PSG within 3 to 5 months. After crossing-over of stimulation mode another PSG was conducted 3 to 5 months later. CRT led to a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction and significant reduction in left ventricular end systolic volumes and N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide plasma levels, whereas no significant effects were observed with ongoing RVP. CSA was significantly improved after 3.9 (3.2 to 4.4) months of CRT: apnea-hypopnea index decreased from 39.1 (32.1 to 54.0) events per hour at baseline to 22.2/h (10.9 to 36.7) by CRT (p <0.001). Central apnea index decreased from 27.1/h (17.7 to 36.1) at baseline to 6.8/h (1.1 to 14.4) after CRT activation (p <0.001). Ongoing RVP yielded only a minor improvement in apnea-hypopnea index and central apnea index. Pre-existent CSA did not affect structural response rate and had no impact on mid-term follow-up (median 2.8 years). In conclusion, CSA is highly prevalent in patients with PICM. CRT upgrading significantly improves CSA leading to a similar outcome in PICM patients without pre-existent CSA.

Combined procedure involving thoracoscopic implantation of the epicardial left ventricular lead and removal of the His bundle pacing lead in a patient with heart failure.

Combined procedure involving thoracoscopic implantation of the epicardial left ventricular lead and removal of the His bundle pacing lead in a patient with heart failure.

Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Implantation Strategy for Non-Left Bundle Branch Block Patients: The ENHANCE CRT Study.

This study compared clinical outcomes between an increased electrical delay in the left ventricular region (QLV)-based LV lead implantation approach (QLV arm) and anatomical implantation approach (control arm) in patients with non-left bundle branch block. Limited data exist on cardiac resynchronization therapy effectiveness in patients with non-left bundle branch block. Clinicians generally deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy through an anatomical implantation approach; however, targeting the QLV may serve as an individualized implantation strategy in non-left bundle branch block patients. The study enrolled 248 subjects at 29 U.S. centers. Subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio between a QLV-based implantation approach and anatomical implantation approach and were implanted with a St. Jude Medical quadripolar cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator system. The primary endpoint was the clinical composite score after 12months of follow-up. The study analyzed 191 available subjects at 12months of follow-up (128 QLV arm, 63 control arm). Of these, 39 subjects (26 in the QLV arm and 13 in the control arm) had heart failure events (8 cardiac deaths and 31 heart failure hospitalizations). Aside from New York Heart Association functional class, there were no other significant differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 arms. The responder rate at 12months measured by the clinical composite score was 67.2% in the QLV arm and 73.0% in the control arm (p=0.506). Although patient-tailored left ventricular lead placement guided by QLV is promising, we observed nodifference in outcome between the QLV-based implantation approach and the conventional anatomical implantationapproach.

Resynchronization therapy with His bundle pacing in a patient after coronary sinus reducer implantation

Symptomatic heart failure patients with ischemic heart disease may require both coronary sinus reducer (CSR) implantation due to refractory angina pectoris and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Optimal approach to CRT in these patients is unknown as CSR implantation in the distal coronary sinus could deter left ventricular lead placement and thus preclude conventional CRT with biventricular pacing. We present a 70-year-old patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy and wide QRS complex after CSR implantation in whom we achieved successful cardiac resynchronization with His bundle pacing (HBP). HBP led to acute improvement in hemodynamic parameters and exercise capacity that persisted at follow-up. This case represents the first description of successful CRT with HBP in a patient after CSR implantation. HBP could present a feasible and safe resynchronization approach in these patients.<Learning objective: Optimal approach to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients after coronary sinus reducer (CSR) implantation remains unknown as CSR implantation in the distal coronary sinus may deter left ventricular lead implantation and thus preclude conventional biventricular pacing. His bundle pacing could present a feasible and safe resynchronization approach in this growing group of patients.>

P534Central sleep apnea in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: prevalence, improvement by upgrading to cardiac resynchronisation therapy and impact on structural responder rates and long-term outcome

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements ÖNB Jubiläumsfondsprojekt Nr. 15974, ISR grant by Boston Scientific, St. Paul, MN, USA Background Central sleep apnea (CSA) in pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is poorly studied. Specifically, it is unknown whether upgrading from right ventricular pacing (RVP) to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) improves CSA. Methods Fifty-three patients with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction, frequent right ventricular pacing due to high-grade atrioventricular block and heart failure symptoms despite optimal medical therapy underwent upgrading to CRT. Within one month after left ventricular lead implantation (but still not activated), sleep apnea was assessed in all participants by single-night polysomnography (PSG). Nineteen patients with moderate or severe CSA defined by an apnea hypopnea index (AHI) &amp;gt; 15 events per hour were re-scheduled for a follow up PSG 3-5 months after initiation of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Of this cohort, thirteen patients with stable mild heart failure agreed to be randomized to CRT versus RVP in a cross-over design. Results CSA (AHI &amp;gt; 5 events per hour) was diagnosed in 26 (49.1%), OSA in 16 (30.2%) patients suffering from PICM . Eleven (20.8%) patients did not have any form of sleep apnea. Moderate to severe CSA (AHI &amp;gt; 15 events per hour) was significantly improved (without specific CPAP therapy) by 102 (96-172) days of CRT: AHI decreased from 39.4 events per hour at baseline to 21.6 by CRT (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Furthermore, CRT led to a substantial decrease in left ventricular endsystolic volumes: baseline 141 ml (103-155), significant improvement under CRT (102 ml, 65-138; p &amp;lt; 0.001), whereas no effect with ongoing RV-pacing (147 ml, 130-161; p = 0.865). Preexistent CSA did not affect the structural response of CRT (56.5% in patients with CSA, 62.5% of patients with obstructive sleep apnea and 54.5% in patients without sleep apnea; p = 0.901) and had no impact on major adverse cardiac events (p = 0.412) and/or survival (p = 0.623) during long-term follow-up. Conclusions CSA is highly prevalent in patients with PICM and is significantly improved by upgrading to CRT. Preexistent CSA does not hamper structural improvement and long-term outcome after upgrading to CRT. Thus, CSA seems to occur as a consequence of PICM, rather than as a pathophysiological mediator. Abstract Figure.

A left ventricular lead implantation at the latest site based on four-dimensional computed tomography: a case report.

BackgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could be an effective therapy for patients suffering from severe heart failure (HF) despite optimal medical therapy. However, it has been reported that about 30% of patients receive ineffective results even if CRT has been performed. In a recent study, four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) was shown to be useful for pre-operative planning in transcatheter aortic valve intervention. The 4DCT is reconstructed with 10% increments over the cardiac cycle so that the displacement of the myocardium can be evaluated over time. From the above, we considered that the most delayed site where we would implant the left ventricular (LV) lead could be recognized by 4DCT.Case summaryA 55-year-old man with a recurrent admission for HF indicated for CRT was referred to our hospital. In this patient, the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) showed a relatively narrow QRS complex with a left bundle branch block pattern. An echocardiography demonstrated severe LV dysfunction. Although no dyssynchrony was detected, the LV lead was inserted into the most delayed site based on the 4DCT. Three-month later, the ejection fraction increased and the cardiothoracic ratio obviously shortened.DiscussionWe experienced a case in which we could evaluate the effective implantation site for the LV lead based on the 4DCT even though the effective site was not detected by echocardiography, and we could implant the LV lead at that effective site. The 4DCT may be useful for implanting LV leads in effective sites.

Epicardial left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients via a video-assisted thoracoscopic technique: Long-term outcome.

BackgroundEpicardial placement of the left ventricular (LV) lead via a video‐assisted thoracoscopic (VAT) approach is an alternative to the standard transvenous technique.HypothesisLong‐term safety and efficacy of VAT and transvenous LV lead implantation are comparable. To test it, we reviewed our experience and we compared the outcomes of patients who underwent implantation with the two techniques.MethodsThe VAT procedure is performed under general anesthesia, with oro‐tracheal intubation and right‐sided ventilation, and requires two 5 mm and one 15 mm thoracoscopic ports. After pericardiotomy at the spot of the epicardial target area, pacing measurements are taken and a spiral screw electrode is anchored at the final pacing site. The electrode is then tunneled to the pectoral pocket and connected to the device.Results105 patients were referred to our center for epicardial LV lead implantation. After pre‐operative assessment, 5 patients were excluded because of concomitant conditions precluding surgery. The remaining 100 underwent the procedure. LV lead implantation was successful in all patients (median pacing threshold 0.8 ± 0.5 V, no phrenic nerve stimulation) and cardiac resynchronization therapy was established in all but one patient. The median procedure time was 75 min. During a median follow‐up of 24 months, there were no differences in terms of death, cardiovascular hospitalizations or device‐related complications vs the group of 100 patients who had undergone transvenous implantation. Patients of both groups displayed similar improvements in terms of ventricular reverse remodeling and functional status.ConclusionsOur VAT approach proved safe and effective, and is a viable alternative in the case of failed transvenous LV implantation.