Search

Background: Left ventricular epicardial lead placement via video-assisted thoracoscopy (VAT) is a recognized surgical technique to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) when conventional lead placement has failed. Its role in patients with previous sternotomy is uncertain. We describe our experience in a cohort of patients including those with previous sternotomy., Methods: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing VAT lead implantation for CRT in a single center between 2004 and 2011. All patients fulfilled conventional criteria for CRT and were followed up at 4 to 6 weeks and then at 3-month intervals. Clinical and pacing parameters were compared at baseline and at the latest review., Results: Thirty-two patients (27 men; mean age, 67 ± 9 years) underwent VAT left ventricular lead implantation. Mean follow-up duration was 704 ± 450 days. Ten patients (31%) had undergone previous sternotomy. Thoracoscopic lead implantation was successful in 31 patients (97%): 1 patient with two previous sternotomies required conversion to open thoracotomy due to bleeding with multiple adhesions. Satisfactory implantation pacing thresholds of 2 volts or less at 0.5 ms were achieved in all patients. Despite a longer operative time in those with previous sternotomy, all clinical and pacing outcomes, including complications, clinical response to CRT, and long-term pacing variables were similar between the groups., Conclusions: VAT left ventricular lead placement appears safe and effective in selected patients with previous sternotomy, including coronary artery bypass operations, with postoperative outcomes comparable with those patients without previous sternotomy., (Copyright © 2013 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Resuscitation Council (UK), the British Cardiovascular Society (including the British Heart Rhythm Society and the British Society for Heart Failure) and the National Council for Palliative Care recognise the importance of providing clear and consistent guidance on management of cardiovascular implanted electronic devices (CIEDs) towards the end of life, during cardiorespiratory arrest and after death. This document has been developed to provide guidance for the full range of healthcare professionals who may encounter people with CIEDs in the situations described and for healthcare managers and commissioners. The authors recognise that some patients and people close to patients may also wish to refer to this document. It is intended as an initial step to help to ensure that people who have CIEDs, or are considering implantation of one, receive explanation of and understand the practical implications and decisions that this entails; to promote a good standard of care and service provision for people in the UK with CIEDs in the circumstances described; to offer relevant ethical and legal guidance on this topic; to offer guidance on the delivery of services in relation to deactivation of CIEDs where appropriate; to offer guidance on whether any special measures are needed when a person with a CIED receives cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and to offer guidance on the actions needed when a person with a CIED dies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early (30 days) and midterm (6 months) clinical outcomes in trials comparing rescue angioplasty (rescue percutaneous coronary intervention [rPCI]) with conservative treatment of failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have shown variable results. Whether early rPCI confers late (up to 3 years) clinical benefits is not known. Methods: The MERLIN trial compared rPCI and a conservative strategy in patients with failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Three hundred seven patients with electrocardiographic evidence of failure to reperfuse at 60 minutes were included. Patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded. Thirty-day and 1-year results have been reported. Results of 3 years of follow-up are presented. Results: Three-year mortality in the conservative arm and rPCI, respectively, was 16.9% versus 17.6% (P = .9, relative difference [RD] -0.8, 95% CI [-9.3 to 7.8]). Death rates were similar (3.9% vs 3.2%) between 1- and 3-year follow-up, respectively. The incidence of the composite secondary end point of death, reinfarction, stroke, unplanned revascularization, or heart failure was significantly higher in the conservative arm (64.3% vs 49%, P = .01, RD 15.3, 95% CI [4.2-26]). There was no significant difference in the rate of reinfarction (0.7% vs 0.7%) or heart failure (1.3% vs 2.7%) between 1 and 3 years between the conservative and rPCI arms, respectively. The incidence of subsequent unplanned revascularization at 3 years was significantly higher in the conservative arm (33.8% vs 14.4%, P < .01, RD 19.4, 95% CI [10-28.7]), most of which occurred within 1 year; the rates between 1 and 3 years were 3.9% in the conservative arm versus 2% in the rPCI arm. There was a trend toward fewer strokes in the conservative arm at 3 years (conservative arm 2.6% vs rPCI 6.5%, P = .1, RD -3.9%, 95% CI [-9.4 to 0.8]), with similar stroke rates (1.3% vs 1.3%) between 1- and 3-year follow-up. Conclusions: Rescue angioplasty did not confer a late survival advantage at 3 years. The composite end point occurred less often in the rPCI arm mainly because of fewer unplanned revascularization procedures in the early phase of follow-up. The highest risk of clinical events in patients with failed reperfusion is in the first year, beyond which the rate of clinical events is low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]