Search

Long-term outcomes are poorly understood, and data in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are lacking.The purpose of this study was to evaluate factors influencing survival in patients undergoing TLE depending on extraction indication.Clinical data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE in the reference center between 2000 and 2019 were prospectively collected. The total cohort was divided into groups depending on whether there was an infective or noninfective indication for TLE. We evaluated the association of demographic, clinical, and device-related and procedure-related factors on mortality.A total of 1151 patients were included. Mean follow-up was 66 months, and mortality was 34.2% (n = 392). Of these patients, 632 (54.9%) and 519 (45.1%) were for infective and noninfective indications, respectively. A higher proportion in the infection group died (38.6% vs 28.5%; P.001). In the total cohort, multivariable analysis demonstrated increased mortality risk with age75 years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.35-3.78; P.001), estimated glomerular filtration rate60 mL/min/1.73 mLong-term mortality for patients undergoing TLE remains high. Consensus guidelines recommend evaluating risk for major complications when determining whether to proceed with TLE. This study suggests also assessing longer-term outcomes when considering TLE in those with a high risk of medium- and long-term mortality, particularly for noninfective indications.

Biventricular endocardial pacing (BiV-endo) has demonstrated superior cardiac resynchronization compared to conventional biventricular epicardial pacing (BiV-epi). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may also achieve effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).The purpose of this study was to compare the acute electrical and hemodynamic effects of BiV-epi, BiV-endo, and LBBAP delivered from the LV endocardium and to assess how myocardial scar affects response.Eleven patients with indications for CRT underwent a temporary pacing study with electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) and hemodynamic assessment. BiV-endo was delivered by stimulation of the left ventricular (LV) lateral wall, and LBBAP was delivered by stimulation of the LV septum, at the site of a Purkinje potential. LV activation time (LVAT-95), LV dyssynchrony index (LVDI), biventricular activation time (BIVAT-90), and biventricular dyssynchrony index (BIVDI) were calculated. Myocardial scar was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).The protocol was completed in 10 patients. Compared to BiV-epi (LVAT-95: 79.2 ± 13.1 ms; LVDI: 26.6 ± 3.4 ms) LV resynchronization was superior during BiV-endo (LVAT-95: 48.5 ± 14.9 ms; P = .001; LVDI: 16.6 ± 6.4 ms; P = .002) and LBBAP (LVAT-95: 48.9 ± 12.5 ms; P = .001; LVDI: 15.3 ± 3.4 ms; P = .001). Biventricular resynchronization was similarly superior during BiV-endo and LBBAP vs BiV-epi (BIVAT-90 and BIVDI; P.05). The rate of acute hemodynamic responders was higher during BiV-endo (90%) and LBBAP (70%) vs BiV-epi (50%). The benefits of LBBAP (but not BiV-endo) on LV resynchronization were attenuated in a subset of 8 patients who underwent MRI.Our findings suggest superior electrical resynchronization and a higher proportion of acute hemodynamic responders during BiV-endo and LBBAP compared to BiV-epi. Electrical resynchronization was similar between BiV-endo and LBBAP; however, septal scar seemed to attenuate response to LBBAP.

The WiSE-CRT system delivers leadless endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy. The electrode is conventionally placed on the lateral wall, but implanting on the LV septum may have advantages, including capture of the left bundle branch, and improved battery longevity owing to reduced distance from the transmitter.The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of leadless LV septal pacing via the WiSE-CRT system.Two pigs underwent electrode implantation on the LV septum with subsequent anatomical and histological examination. Eight patients underwent implantation of the WiSE-CRT system with deployment of the electrode on the LV septum via an interatrial transseptal approach.Deployment of the electrode on the LV septum was successful in both animals. Histological examination demonstrated electrode tines in close proximity to Purkinje tissue. WiSE-CRT implantation with an LV septal electrode was successful in all patients. Biventricular capture was confirmed, with a significant reduction in QRS duration (187.1 ± 33.8 ms vs 149.5 ± 15.7 ms; P = .009). Temporary LV pacing achieved further QRS reduction (139.8 ± 12.4 ms), and in 4 patients the peak LV activation time in lead VLeadless LV septal pacing with the WiSE-CRT system to target the left bundle branch appears feasible. Further study is required to assess the efficacy and safety of this technique.

Background Epicardial pacing increases risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) when pacing in proximity to scar. Endocardial pacing may be less arrhythmogenic as it preserves the physiological sequences of activation and repolarization. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine the relative arrhythmogenic risk of endocardial compared to epicardial pacing, and the role of the transmural gradient of action potential duration (APD) and pacing location relative to scar on arrhythmogenic risk during endocardial pacing. Methods Computational models of ICM patients (n = 24) were used to simulate left ventricular (LV) epicardial and endocardial pacing 0.2–3.5 cm from a scar. Mechanisms were investigated in idealized models of the ventricular wall and scar. Simulations were run with/without a 20-ms transmural APD gradient in the physiological direction and with the gradient inverted. Dispersion of repolarization was computed as a surrogate of VT risk. Results Patient-specific models with a physiological APD gradient predict that endocardial pacing decreases VT risk (34%; P

Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a novel procedure for treatment of patients with dyssynchronous heart failure. Current evidence is limited to observational studies with small patient numbers.The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of leadless LV endocardial pacing.A literature search was conducted through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Mean differences (MDs) in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6 months postprocedure were combined using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochrane Q test, IFive studies with 181 patients were included in the final analysis. Procedural success rate was 90.6%. Clinical response rate was 63%, with mean improvement in NYHA functional class of 0.43 (MD -0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.76 to -0.1; P = .01), with high heterogeneity (P.001; IThe efficacy of leadless LV endocardial pacing for CRT supports its use as a second-line therapy in patients in whom standard CRT is not possible or has been ineffective. Improvements in safety profile will facilitate widespread uptake in the treatment of these patients.

His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are emerging as novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). HBP and LBP have never been compared to biventricular endocardial (BiV-endo) pacing. Furthermore, there are indications of negative effects of LBP on right ventricular (RV) activation times (ATs), but these effects have not been quantified.The purpose of this study was to compare changes in ventricular activation induced by HBP, LBP, left ventricular (LV) septal pacing, BiV-endo, and biventricular epicardial (BiV-epi) pacing using computer simulations.We simulated ventricular activation on 24 four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of the His-Purkinje network in the presence of LBBB. We simulated BiV-epi pacing, BiV-endo pacing with left ventricular (LV) lead at the lateral wall, BiV-endo pacing with LV lead at the LV septum, HBP, and LBP.HBP was superior to BiV-endo and BiV-epi in terms of reduction in LV ATs and interventricular dyssynchrony (P.05). LBP reduced LV ATs but not interventricular dyssynchrony compared to BiV-epi and BiV-endo pacing. RV latest AT was higher with LBP than with HBP (141.3 ± 10.0 ms vs 111.8 ± 10.4 ms). Optimizing AV delay during LBP reduced RV latest AT (104.7 ± 8.7 ms) and led to comparable response to HBP. In case of complete AV block, BiV-endo septal pacing was equivalent to LBP.HBP is superior to BiV-epi and BiV-endo. To achieve comparable response to HBP, AV delay optimization during LBP is required in order to reduce RV ATs.