Search

Background: Both anatomic interlead separation and left ventricle lead electrical delay (LVLED) have been associated with outcomes following cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the relationship between interlead distance and electrical delay in predicting CRT outcomes has not been defined. Methods: We studied 61 consecutive patients undergoing CRT for standard clinical indications. All patients underwent intraprocedural measurement of LVLED. Interlead distances in the horizontal (HD), vertical (VD), and direct (DD) dimensions were measured from postprocedure chest radiographs (CXR). Remodeling indices [percent change in left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction, end-diastolic, end-systolic dimensions] were assessed by transthoracic echocardiogram. Results: There was a positive correlation between corrected LVLED and HD on lateral CXR (r = 0.361, P = 0.004) and a negative correlation between LVLED and VD on posteroanterior (PA) CXR (r =−0.281, P = 0.028). To account for this inverse relationship, we developed a composite anatomic distance (defined as: lateral HD—PA VD), which correlated most closely with LVLED (r = 0.404, P = 0.001). Follow-up was available for 48 patients. At a mean of 4.1 ± 3.2 months, patients with optimal values for both corrected LVLED (≥75%) and composite anatomic distance (≥15 cm) demonstrated greater reverse LV remodeling than patients with either one or neither of these optimized values. Conclusions: We identified a significant correlation between LV–right ventricular interlead distance and LVLED; additionally, both parameters act synergistically in predicting LV anatomic reverse remodeling. Efforts to optimize both interlead distance and electrical delay may improve CRT outcomes. (PACE 2010; 575–582)

Introduction:We tested the feasibility of a new technique of direct left ventricular endocardial lead placement across the aortic valve in a chronic (six month) pig model. The potential for aortic valve damage, systemic embolization, and pacing lead maturation and function within the left ventricle are unknown. Methods:Ten minipigs were successfully implanted with a transaortic left ventricular lead (Medtronic CapSureFix®, Minneapolis, MN, USA) placed in the left ventricular apex via the carotid artery. Each pig received either a polyurethane (n = 5) or silicone (n = 5) lead. Post implant each pig received clopidogrel and aspirin for seven days. After six months all surviving pigs underwent thorough necropsy. Results:Each pig had adequate sensing (12.1 ± 4 mV) and pacing thresholds (0.79 ± 0.2 @ 0.5 V) at implant. Postoperatively two pigs died of a respiratory illness. One pig died postoperatively due to sepsis. At the six-month follow-up, all surviving pigs (n = 7) were in a healthy state. Of the pigs without dislodgement (n = 5) there was adequate sensing, but a rise in pacing thresholds. Echocardiography revealed a normal ejection fraction and only trace to mild aortic insufficiency in all pigs. Of the seven surviving pigs there were no thromboembolic events noted. One silicone lead was noted to have thrombosis along the lead screw and shaft. Conclusion:Direct transaortic placement of a left ventricular lead is feasible. After six months, there was no significant aortic regurgitation and no evidence of thromboembolism despite no anticoagulation. Lead function was acceptable and only one silicone lead (and no polyurethane lead) was noted to have significant thrombosis.