Search

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves ventricular function, but a positive response to CRT is often limited due to left ventricular (LV) lead placement in a suboptimal position. Complex coronary venous anatomy can hinder the placement of an LV lead in the target vessel, leading to poor CRT response. Objective: To report experience with snare‐assisted LV lead delivery in CRT and compare outcomes with the conventional LV lead delivery. Methods: This is a single‐center retrospective case–control study of CRT implants between 2016 and 2021. Snare‐assisted lead delivery was performed in cases where conventional lead placement failed or when a preferred target vessel had anatomy amenable to the technique. Safety and outcomes were compared to conventional LV lead placement cases. Results: Among 180 CRT cases, 33 were snare‐assisted, and 147 were conventional LV lead placements. Median follow‐up was 924 days in the snare and 618.5 days in the control group. The lead placement was successful in 28/33 snare and 138/147 control cases. A mid‐vessel segment was attained in 89.3% of snare and 72.5% of control cases(p =.03). The apical position was more frequently observed in the control group (26.8% vs. 7.1%, p =.03). All‐cause mortality trended lower in the snare group (6.1%) compared to (17.1%) in the control group (p =.13). Conclusion: Snare‐assisted LV lead delivery is a safe and effective technique that can be utilized for overcoming complex venous anatomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mengya Dong,1 Chenyuan Liang,1 Gong Cheng2 1Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shaanxi Provincial People’s Hospital, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Honghui Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Gong Cheng, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Honghui Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University, 555 East Youyi Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710054, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86– 18629529996, Email Xianchenggong@163.comObjective: A new approach called the loop technique has been proven safe and effective for repeated intraoperative transvenous left ventricular (LV) lead dislocations during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in a 3-year follow-up. This study aimed to report on the 5-year safety and effectiveness of the loop technique.Methods: This study was a prospective cohort study. Forty-four patients who underwent CRT device implantation at the Cardiology Department of Shaanxi Provincial People’s Hospital between January 2013 and June 2019 were included. Data on patient demographics, medical history, laboratory test results, and echocardiography images at admission were collected. The loop technique was performed with repeated intraoperative dislocations of the LV lead. The intraoperative CRT parameters were also recorded. All patients were followed for 5 years. Several auxiliary examinations were performed during follow-up.Results: The 44 patients were divided into the traditional operation group (n=36, 81.8%) and loop technique group (n=8, 18.2%). The baseline patient characteristics were almost balanced. During the 5-year follow-up, 8 (22.2%) patients in the traditional operation group and 2 (25.0%) patients in the loop technique group died. No lead dislocation or other complications related to CRT were observed. There were no significant differences in mortality rate (P=0.87), cardiac function (P=0.56), echocardiographic indices, threshold (P=0.58), or impedance (P=0.22) of the LV lead. There were no significant differences in the threshold and impedance between postoperative, 3-year, and 5-year follow-ups in the loop technique group (P=0.53).Conclusion: The loop technique is an ideal solution for repeated intraoperative LV lead dislocation during CRT implantation.Keywords: loop technique, new technique, cardiac resynchronization therapy, left ventricular lead, repeated intraoperative dislocations

Key Clinical Message: The newly‐proposed tandem approach, Wire ThRoUgh Snare Twice (Wire TRUST) is effective for grasping a lead with inaccessible ends. This case report shows that Wire TRUST can also enable successful extraction of a left ventricular lead by iteratively grasping and repositioning to the distal portion of the lead. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 univariable 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 implantation 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: to study the technical performance of epicardial left ventricular (LV) leads placed via video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), compared to transvenously placed leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods: From 2001 until 2013, a total of 644 lead placement procedures were performed for CRT. In the case of unsuccessful transvenous LV lead placement, the patient received an epicardial LV lead. Study groups consist of 578 patients with a transvenous LV lead and 66 with an epicardial LV lead. The primary endpoint was LV-lead failure necessitating a replacement or deactivation. The secondary endpoint was energy consumption. Results: The mean follow up was 5.9 years (epicardial: 5.5 ± 3.1, transvenous: 5.9 ± 3.5). Transvenous leads failed significantly more frequently than epicardial leads with a total of 66 (11%) in the transvenous leads group vs. 2 (3%) in the epicardial lead group (p = 0.037). Lead energy consumption was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Epicardial lead placement is feasible, safe and shows excellent long-term performance compared to transvenous leads. Epicardial lead placement should be considered when primary transvenous lead placement fails or as a primary lead placement strategy in challenging cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Left ventricular (LV) lead optimal positioning is one of the most important determinants of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) success. LV quadripolar active fixation (QAF) leads have been designed to ensure stable LV pacing in the target area and reduce the likelihood of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS). The aim of this analysis is to compare performances, safety, and clinical outcomes of QAF with those of quadripolar passive fixation leads (QPL) and bipolar active fixation (BAF) leads in a real‐world cohort of CRT patients. Methods and Results: This retrospective analysis compared the procedure and follow‐up data of 117 QAF included in the One Hospital ClinicalService project from nine Italian hospitals with two historical cohorts of 261 BAF and 124 QPL. QAF enabled basal pacing more frequently than QPL (24.1% vs. 6.5%, p <.001) but not differently from BAF (p =.981). At implant, mean QAF LV myocardial threshold (LVMT) was 1.21 ± 0.8 V at 0.4 ms, not different from that of BAF (p =.346) and QPL (p =.333). At a median follow‐up of 22 months, LVMT was 1.37 ± 0.90 V (p =.036 vs. implant). Acute LV lead dislodgment occurrence was low in all cohorts: 1 (0.9%) in QAF, 4 in BAF (1.5%), and none (0.0%) in QPL. During follow‐up, total LV‐related complication rate was lower in QAF (0.5/100 patient‐years) than in BAF (4.2/100 patient‐years, p =.014) and QPL (3.6/100 patient‐years, p =.055). QAF, BAF, and QPL annual rate of heart failure hospitalization were respectively 6.1/100 patient‐years, 2.5/100 patient‐years (p =.081), and 3.6/100 patient‐years (p =.346). CRT responders' rate in QAF was 69.9%, with no difference in comparison to BAF (p =.998) and QPL (p =.509). During follow‐up, mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of QAF increased from 31.8 ± 10.1% to 40.3 ± 10.7% (p <.001). The average degree of echocardiographic response (ΔLVEF) did not differ between QAF and other cohorts; however, LVEF CRT responder's distribution of QAF differs from those of BAF (p =.003) and QPL (p =.022), due to a higher percentage of super‐responders. Conclusions: QAF with short interelectrode spacing resulted in non‐inferior clinical outcomes and CRT responders' rate in comparison to BAF and QPL, while reducing complication rate during follow‐up and increasing the possibilities of electronic repositioning to manage PNS or to optimize resynchronization therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The snare technique can be used to overcome unsuitable cardiac venous anatomies for left ventricular (LV) lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) procedures. However, limited data exist regarding performance of the snare technique. We classified 262 patients undergoing CRT procedure into the snare (n = 20) or conventional group (n = 242) according to the LV lead implantation method. We compared the safety, efficacy, and composite outcome (all-cause death and heart failure readmission) at 3 years post-implant between the snare and conventional groups. In the snare group, all LV leads were implanted safely using orthodromic (n = 15) or antidromic (n = 5) techniques, and no immediate complications occurred including vessel perforation, tamponade, and lead dislodgement. During follow-up, LV lead threshold and impedance remained stable without requiring lead revision in the snare group. There were no significant between-group differences regarding LV ejection fraction increase (12 ± 13% vs. 12 ± 13%, p = 0.929) and LV end-systolic volume reduction (18 ± 48% vs. 28 ± 31%, p = 0.501). Both groups exhibited comparable CRT-response rates (62.5% vs. 60.6%, p = 1.000). The risk of primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups (25.9% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.817). In patients who failed conventional LV lead implantation for CRT, the snare technique could be a safe and effective solution to overcome difficult coronary venous anatomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract In this report, we present a case of successful advancement of a LV lead into tortuous vessels. This was achieved by deep engagement of the coronary sinus with a cannulation catheter by applying the anchor technique using the Medtronic Attain Stability Quad lead.

In this report, we present a case of successful advancement of a LV lead into tortuous vessels. This was achieved by deep engagement of the coronary sinus with a cannulation catheter by applying the anchor technique using the Medtronic Attain Stability Quad lead. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inadvertent lead misplacement in the left ventricle can lead to thromboembolic events, valvular damage, and endocarditis. We present a case of an inadvertently placed transarterial pacemaker lead in the left ventricle in a patient who underwent percutaneous lead removal. After a multidisciplinary team discussion involving cardiac electrophysiology and interventional cardiology as well as a discussion of treatment options with the patient, it was decided to proceed with pacemaker lead removal with the Sentinel™ Cerebral Protection System (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) to prevent thromboembolic events. The patient tolerated the procedure well without post-procedural complications and was discharged the next day on oral anticoagulation. We also present a step-by-step approach to perform lead removal with the use of Sentinel™, emphasizing mitigating the stroke and bleeding risks in this patient setting., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest for the published content. No funding information was provided., (Copyright: © 2023 Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management.)

Left ventricular lead positioning is technically demanding in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation, especially in patients with complex cardiac venous anatomies. We report a case in which retrograde snaring was employed to successfully deliver the left ventricular lead through a persistent left superior vena cava for CRT implantation., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest for the published content. No funding information was provided., (Copyright: © 2023 Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management.)