Search

Aims: Endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy has been proposed as an alternative to conventional LV lead placement via the coronary sinus. In order to assess the relative benefits and risks of this technique, we have performed a meta-analysis of published reports.Methods and results: A systemic search was performed using online databases to identify studies of lead-based endocardial pacing. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, to assess the rate of complications and clinical response (defined as ≥1 decrease in NYHA class). We selected 23 studies, including 384 patients. The trans-atrial septal technique was used in 20 studies, 1 used the trans-ventricular apical technique, and 2 used the trans-ventricular septal technique. Mean age was 66 years, male 66%, EF 26%, NYHA class 3.0. Procedural success rates were over 95% in all studies. Clinical response was reported by 16 studies for 262 patients, giving a response estimate of 82% (95% CI 71-89%). There was significant heterogeneity, and response in the only large study was 59%. Thromboembolic (TE) complications were reported by all studies, over 22 ±32 months follow up. The rate of stroke was 2.5 events per 100 patient years (95% CI 1.5-4.3), and TIA 2.6 (1.1-6.1). The mortality rate was 4.5 (1.5-13.6) per 100 patient years.Conclusion: LV endocardial pacing appears to be a viable technique when conventional lead placement is not possible. Response rates were heterogeneous but comparable with conventional CRT. There is likely to be a small increase over expected rates of stroke, although included patients were high risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We retrospectively assessed two types of sutureless screw-in left ventricular (LV) leads (steroid eluting vs. non-steroid eluting) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation with regards to their electrical performance.Methods: Between March 2008 and May 2014 an epicardial LV lead was implanted in 32 patients after failed transvenous LV lead placement using a left-sided lateral minithoracotomy or video-assisted thoracoscopy (mean age 64 ± 9 years). Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of implanted lead. Steroid eluting (SE) group: 21 patients (Myodex™ 1084 T; St. Jude Medical) and non-steroid eluting (NSE) group: 11 patients (MyoPore® 511,212; Greatbatch Medical).Results: All epicardial leads could be placed successfully, without any intraoperative complications or mortality. With regard to the implanted lead following results were observed: sensing (mV): SE 8.8 ± 6.1 vs. NSE 10.1 ± 5.3 (p = 0.380); pacing threshold (V@0.5 ms): SE 1.0 ± 0.5 vs. NSE 0.9 ± 0.5 (p = 0.668); impedance (ohms): SE 687 ± 236 vs. NSE 790 ± 331 (p = 0.162). At the follow-up (2.6 ± 1.9 years) the following results were seen: sensing (mV): SE 8.7 ± 5.0 vs. NSE 11.2 ± 6.6 (p = 0.241), pacing threshold (V@0.5 ms): SE 1.4 ± 0.5 vs. NSE 1.0 ± 0.3 (p = 0.035), impedance (ohms): SE 381 ± 95 vs. NSE 434 ± 88 (p = 0.129).Conclusions: Based on the results no strong differences have been found between the both types of epicardial LV leads (steroid eluting vs. non-steroid eluting) in CRT implantation in short- and midterm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Although the majority of Class III congestive heart failure (HF) patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) show a clinical benefit, up to 40% of patients do not respond to CRT. This paper reports the design of the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) trial, a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CRT using MPP compared to standard biventricular (Bi-V) pacing.Methods: A maximum of 506 patients with a standard CRT-D indication will be enrolled at up to 50 US centers. All patients will be implanted with a CRT-D system (Quartet LV lead Model 1458Q with a Quadra CRT-D, Abbott) that can deliver both MPP and Bi-V pacing. Standard Bi-V pacing will be activated at implant. At 3 months postimplant, patients in whom the echocardiographic parameters during MPP are equal or better than during Bi-V pacing are randomized (1:1) to either an MPP or Bi-V arm.Results: The primary safety endpoint is freedom from system-related complications at 9 months. Each patient's response to CRT will be evaluated using a heart-failure clinical composite score, consisting of a change in NYHA functional class, patient global assessment score, HF events, and cardiovascular death. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of responders in the MPP arm compared with the Bi-V arm between 3 and 9 months.Conclusion: This trial seeks to evaluate whether MPP via a single quadripolar LV lead improves hemodynamic and clinical responses to CRT, both in clinical responders and nonresponders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) fails to provide benefit in up to one-third of patients. Maximizing the geographic separation of right and left ventricular pacing lead sites has been suggested as one way to improve response. Cardiac CT provides an opportunity to explore 3-dimensional inter-lead distance (ILD) measures for the prediction of CRT response. The objective of this study was to investigate associations between standardized measures of ILD by cardiac CT and echocardiographic response to CRT. Forty-two consecutive patients undergoing CRT had serial clinical and echocardiographic evaluations performed in addition to a post-procedural cardiac-gated CT with blinded measurement of direct and circumferential (via the myocardium) ILD measures. Clinical response to CRT, the primary clinical outcome, was defined as a ≥15% reduction in LVESV using echocardiography at 6-months. The mean age and ejection fraction was 63.6 ± 8.9 years and 25.2 ± 7.8%, respectively. The primary outcome occurred in 35 of 42 patients (83%). Both direct and circumferential CT-based ILD measures were associated with the primary outcome by univariate analysis. Receiver Operator Characteristic analysis identified Circumferential ILD to have the strongest predictive accuracy (AUC 0.78). Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of CT-derived ILD measures was excellent. Circumferential ILD measures on cardiac CT are predictive of clinical response to CRT. Incorporation of these measures into the selection of optimal pacing targets, particularly from pre-procedural CT coronary vein imaging may be of therapeutic benefit and warrants further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Treatment of left ventricular electrode dislocation and phrenic nerve stimulation remains an issue in the era of new electrode designs. Methods Safety and efficacy of minimal invasive lead repositioning and pocket opening reposition procedures were evaluated between December 2005 and December 2012 at our center. Minimal invasive method was developed and widely utilized at our center to treat phrenic nerve stimulation. The distally positioned left ventricular lead is looped around by a deflectable catheter in the right atrium introduced from the femoral vein access and then pulled back. Coronary stent implantation was used afterwards for lead stabilization in some patients. Results 42 minimal invasive and 48 electrode repositions with pacemaker pocket opening were performed at 77 patients for left ventricular lead problems. Minimal invasive reposition could be carried out successfully in 69% of (29 patients) cases. Note that in 14.3% of the cases (six patients) minimal invasive procedures were acutely unsuccessful and crossover was necessary. In 16.6% of the cases (seven patients) lead issues were noted later during follow-up. Opening of the pocket could be carried out successfully in 81.2% (39 patients) and was unsuccessful acutely in 6.25% (three patients). Repeated dislocation was noticed, 12.5%, in this group (six patients). Complication during minimal invasive procedures was electrode injury in one case. Pocket openings were associated with several complications: atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, fever, hematoma, and right ventricular electrode dislodgement. Conclusion Minimal invasive procedure-as the first line approach-is safe and feasible for left ventricular electrode repositioning in selected cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Suboptimal biventricular pacing has deleterious effects on patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy. We describe a unique case of suboptimal biventricular pacing and our approach to overcome it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implantation of a transvenous endocardial pacing lead in the right ventricle is contra-indicated after mechanical tricuspid valve replacement; therefore a surgical approach to the epicardium is usually required. This case report describes ventricular pacing via a branch of the coronary sinus in a patient with mechanical mitral, aortic and tricuspid valve replacements. In conclusion, this approach is minimally invasive, provides effective ventricular stimulation with low pacing threshold and stable lead position, and is a feasible option when transvenous right ventricular pacing is not possible.

Inadvertent lead placement in the left ventricle (LV) is an uncommon and often under-diagnosed complication of cardiac device implantation. Thromboembolic (TE) events are common and usually secondary to fibrosis or thrombus formation on or around the lead. Anticoagulation can prevent TE events. Percutaneous and surgical LV lead extractions have been performed successfully, but the risks of percutaneous lead removal are not well-defined. In this report, we describe a case of inadvertent LV lead placement and briefly review the contemporary literature.

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.)

Aims: Left ventricular (LV) lead implantation through the coronary sinus (CS) can be limited and sometimes not possible-alternative approaches are needed. Minimally invasive, robotically guided LV lead implantation has major advantages, but there are little published data about the short- and long-term follow-ups, in terms of feasibility, safety, electrical performance, and impact on clinical outcome.Methods and Results: A total of 21 heart failure patients underwent robotically guided LV lead implantation using the Da Vinci Robotic System. Indications were failed implant with conventional approach through the CS (n = 16) and non-response to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (n = 5). During the procedure, the entire LV free wall was exposed through 3 transthoracic ports (10 mm diameter each) allowing ample choice of stimulation site and the ability to implant 2 LV leads via a Y connector. Patients were prospectively followed up for 1 year. The two LV leads were successfully implanted in all patients. No peri-procedural complications were observed. After a mean stay in the intensive care unit of 1.2 ± 4 days, the 21 patients were hospitalized in the EP department for 6.7 ± 2.9 days. Acute LV thresholds were excellent (1.0 V ± 0.6/0.4 ms) and stayed stable at 1-year follow-up (1.5 V ± 0.6/0.4 ms, P = 0.21). Four patients demonstrated an increased threshold (>2 V/0.4 ms). There was no phrenic nerve stimulation. After 12 months, in the failed implant group, 69% of the patients were echocardiographic and clinical responders.Conclusion: The robotic approach was feasible, safe, and minimally invasive. Accordingly, robotically guided LV lead implantation seems to offer a new alternative when conventional approaches are not suitable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Left ventricular lead (LVL) implant success rates have historically ranged between 70.5% and 95.5%. To date, there are few large studies that evaluate LVL implant success utilizing a single family of delivery catheters and leads. The Attain Success study was a prospective nonrandomized multicenter global study with the main objectives of assessing single-system LVL implant success and complication rates. Methods Patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation were eligible for enrollment. There was no prespecified level of experience for investigator participation. LVL implant success and complication rates were assessed though 3 months of follow-up. Results A total of 2,014 patients (69.1 ± 12.0 years, 71% male and 38% atrial fibrillation) were enrolled from 114 centers with a follow-up of 3.5 ± 2.1 months. Coronary sinus cannulation success rate was 96.4% with Attain Family delivery catheters. Implant success rate for Attain Family leads using Attain Family catheters was 94.0%; overall LVL implant success rate was 97.1%. Median procedure time was 4 minutes for cannulation and 9 minutes for LVL placement. Median fluoroscopy time was 17 minutes and median contrast used was 25 cc. There were 55 catheter or LVL-related complications in 53 subjects; the majority were LVL dislodgements (34, 1.7%) and extracardiac stimulation (11, 0.5%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 3-month complication probability was 2.6%. Conclusion This study represents the largest prospective evaluation of LVL implantation to date, revealing a high LVL implant success rate and low complication rate using a single family of leads and delivery catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) relies on sufficient left ventricular (LV) pacing with safety margin to phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS). Previous studies introduced LV vector reprogramming in bipolar coronary sinus leads to optimize LV pacing and avoid PNS. We investigated the efficacy and reliability of quadripolar leads in CRT. Methods The EffaceQ study enrolled 344 patients with de novo CRT implantation with a quadripolar LV lead in an observational, prospective multicenter study. The study was powered to demonstrate that in at least 90% of patients with an implanted quadripolar LV lead, a viable LV pacing configuration (LVPC) is available (primary end point: LV pacing threshold ≤2.5 V/0.5 ms, sufficient PNS margin). Results Quadripolar leads were successfully implanted in 96% of patients. A total of 278 of 299 (93.0%) patients with complete data met the criteria for viable LVPC. With the use of traditional LVPCs, a viable LVPC would have been available (268 of 299 patients; P = 0.002) in significantly fewer patients (89.6%). In any LVPC, PNS was inducible in 65.0% of patients and 22.6% of patients reported PNS during ambulatory 3-month follow-up. LVPC reprogramming was performed in 49.8% of patients. PNS inducibility decreased from distal to proximal electrodes, whereas LV pacing thresholds increased from distal to proximal. At prehospital discharge, 5.9 ± 2.8 viable LVPCs were observed, stable during follow-up. The quadripolar electrode offered significantly more LVPC for LV optimization and PNS avoidance. Conclusion Quadripolar LV leads yield high numbers of patients with viable LVPCs and alternatives for noninvasive repositioning of LV pacing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Transvenous left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy–defibrillator (CRT-D) delivery is unsuccessful in 8% to 10% of cases. These patients might benefit from an epicardial lead. However, data on long-term epicardial lead performance are scarce. Furthermore, extracting an epicardial lead requires a rethoracotomy. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine data on almost a decade of experience with epicardial leads and investigate the safety of partially leaving this lead in place after device infection. Methods All adult patients receiving an epicardial lead (Medtronic CapSure Epi, model 4968) for CRT-D in the Leiden University Medical Center were included. Leads were implanted during a standalone procedure or in combination with other cardiothoracic procedures. Electrical lead parameters were assessed at implantation and every 6 months thereafter. In case of device infection the epicardial lead was cut off parasternal, just outside the thoracic cavity, leaving the distal part of the lead in place. Results Two-hundred sixteen patients were included with a median follow-up of 3 years (25th–75th percentile 1.0–5.5). LV pacing threshold decreased within 6 months after implantation [1.1 V (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9–1.2) vs 0.8 V (95% CI 0.7–0.9), P = .01] and stabilized thereafter. Mean LV electrogram was 15.2 ± 7.5mV, and average lead impedance was 633.5 ± 174.0 Ω. Five-year cumulative incidence was 1.6% for lead failure and 9.6% for device infection. The retained epicardial lead caused skin erosion in 3 patients and fistula formation in 1. Conclusion This study demonstrates that epicardial LV leads have an excellent long-term performance. Partially retaining the lead after device infection was associated with a risk of reinfection with limited long-term clinical implications for the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A case of cardiac resynchronization is presented with paced- QRS narrowing effected via a left ventricular (LV) lead placed at an anterior cardiac vein after failed implantation at the lateral wall due to phrenic nerve stimulation. Data are presented indicating that an anterior LV pacing site selection may not be that bad after all, particularly when biventricular pacing from this position produces a QRS that is narrower than the baseline native QRS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

Purpose: Small single-center comparative studies suggest improved outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients implanted with a quadripolar left ventricular (LV) lead in comparison with non-quadripolar (bipolar) leads. This study represents the first large multicenter prospective registry comparing implant and 6-month postoperative lead performance following CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation with quadripolar vs. bipolar leads. Methods: During a 39-month period, 418 consecutive patients having CRT-D implantation attempts with either a quadripolar ( n = 230) or bipolar LV lead ( n = 188) were enrolled in the registry. The primary outcome of the study was LV lead failure defined as any abnormality, excluding infection, resulting in surgical lead revision or CRT termination. Additionally, operative and follow-up data were analyzed for significant difference between groups. Results: Baseline characteristics of both groups were similar. In 72.9 % of quadripolar leads versus 65.0 % of bipolar leads, the LV lead successfully engaged the predefined ideal target side branch ( p = 0.47). Implant duration and fluoroscopy times were significantly shorter when a quadripolar lead was used ( p = 0.007 and p = 0.001, respectively). The primary end point occurred in six patients (2.7 %) in the quadripolar group and in 14 patients (8.0 %) in the bipolar group ( p = 0.02). Clinically significant phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) occurred in 4.6 vs. 14.2 % of quadripolar vs. bipolar patients, respectively ( p = 0.002); all PNS were resolved noninvasively through programming in the quadripolar group vs. 84 % in bipolar group ( p = 0.75). The use of a bipolar lead was associated with a higher risk of surgical LV lead revision (6.3 vs. 2.3 %; p = 0.057) and a higher incidence of dislodgment (5.7 vs. 2.7 %; p = 0.16). Conclusions: This multicenter study demonstrates that the use of a quadripolar LV lead results in significantly lower rates of lead-related problems and reduced procedural and fluoroscopic times for biventricular system implantation. This has important implications for LV pacing lead choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Optimization of Left Ventricular Lead Position Background The left ventricular (LV) lead local electrogram (EGM) delay from the beginning of the QRS complex (QLV) is considered a strong predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. We have developed a method for fast epicardial QLV mapping during video-thoracoscopic surgery to guide LV lead placement. Methods A three-port, video-thoracoscopic approach was used for LV free wall epicardial mapping and lead implantation. A decapolar electrophysiological catheter was introduced through one port and systematically attached to multiple accessible LV sites. The pacing lead was targeted to the site with maximum QLV. The LV free wall activation pattern was analyzed in 16 pre-specified anatomical segments. Results We implanted LV leads in 13 patients with LBBB or IVCD. The procedural and mapping times were 142 ± 39 minutes and 20 ± 9 minutes, respectively. A total of 15.0 ± 2.2 LV segments were mappable with variable spatial distribution of QLV-optimum. The QLV ratio (QLV/QRSd) at the optimum segment was significantly higher (by 0.17 ± 0.08, p < 0.00001) as compared to an empirical midventricular lateral segment. The LV lead was implanted at the optimum segment in 11 patients (at an adjacent segment in 2 patients) achieving a QLV ratio of 0.82 ± 0.09 (range 0.63-0.93) and 99.5 ± 0.6% match with intraprocedural mapping. Conclusion Video-thoracoscopic LV lead implantation can be effectively and safely guided by epicardial QLV mapping. This strategy was highly successful in targeting the selected LV segment and resulted in significantly higher QLV ratios compared to an empirical midventricular lateral segment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While modern implant tools have contributed greatly to the success of cardiac resynchronization therapy, technical challenges remain. A common problem is the inability to advance left ventricular pacing leads into branch veins that are tortuous or arise at steep angles. In these cases, advancement of the lead causes it to buckle and prolapse into the coronary sinus or great cardiac vein. Lead prolapsed can be avoided by employing a balloon to temporarily obstruct the coronary sinus or great cardiac vein just upstream from the branch vein. The balloon redirects the force of advancement laterally into the branch vein, facilitating delivery. (PACE 2013; 36:e31-e34) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implantation of a left ventricular pacing lead via the coronary sinus to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy has become standard therapy for patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III or IV heart failure and significant intraventricular conduction delay. Biventricular pacing has been shown to provide both symptomatic and mortality benefit in appropriately selected patients. There is significant variability in the anatomy of the coronary sinus and the epicardial coronary venous system. Although a suitable candidate vein may be identified during coronary venography, efforts toward successful guidewire placement or lead placement may be hampered by anatomic obstacles. In this case report, we provide a solution to overcome severe tortuosity encountered at the vein-coronary sinus junction and angulation of the proximal vein. The use of a second coronary sinus sheath and a retrogradely placed guidewire may overcome this anatomic obstacle of vessel tortuosity, when placement by other means has proven unsuccessful. (PACE 2013; 36:e41-e44) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To investigate the influence of left ventricular (LV) lead position on LV dyssynchrony in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods and results The LV lead was prospectively targeted to the latest activated LV segment (concordant) evaluated by two-dimensional speckle tracking radial strain (ST-RS) echocardiography in 103 CRT recipients (67 ± 12 years). Mechanical dyssynchrony was assessed by anteroseptal-to-posterior (AS-P) delay and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD). Concordant LV leads were obtained in 72 (70%) patients. Superior LV reverse remodelling (LV-RR; ≥15% LV end-systolic volume reduction at 6-month follow-up) was observed in the concordant LV leads compared with the discordant LV leads [51 (76%) vs. 13 (45%); P = 0.003]. Mechanical resynchronization responders (≥50% AS-P delay reduction at 6-month follow-up) obtained in the concordant LV leads [44 (66%)] was greater than in the discordant LV leads [10 (34%); P = 0.005]. The discordant LV leads located adjacent to the concordant LV leads (+1 segment; n = 22) and 2 segments apart (+2 segments; n = 9) were evaluated in a subgroup analysis. Mechanical resynchronization responders 6 months after CRT were as follows: in +1 segment [n = 10 (48%)] and in +2 segments (n = 0; P = 0.001). The concordant LV lead was the only independent predictor of LV-RR at 6-month follow-up (odds ratio, 4.177; P = 0.004). Independent predictors of mechanical resynchronization responders were AS-P delay (odds ratio, 1.007; P = 0.032), IVMD (odds ratio, 1.024; P = 0.038), and concordant LV lead (odds ratio, 4.691; P = 0.004). Conclusion Concordant LV leads in CRT provided more responders according to both LV reverse remodelling and mechanical resynchronization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With increasing coronary sinus (CS) pacemaker leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy, the need to remove these leads has risen. The purpose of this study is to describe a single center's experience with CS lead removal and to attempt to identify predictors of difficulty with lead removal and complications. We reviewed all percutaneous endocardial CS lead removals performed at our institution through February 2010. Successful removal with traction alone was considered simple while complex extractions required traction devices and/or laser sheaths. Between December 1996 and February 2010, 125 CS leads were percutaneously removed ≥1 week post-implantation from 115 patients. One attempt at CS lead extraction was unsuccessful. The average duration since implantation for the CS leads was 1.54 years (± .75 years, range 8 days to 8.24 years). The majority of the leads were removed by simple traction ( n = 114, 91.2 %). The remainder were removed by femoral approach with snare ( n = 3, 2.4 %), locking stylet ( n = 2, 1.6 %), or locking stylet and laser sheath ( n = 6, 4.8 %). Half of CS leads in place greater than 4 years required complex extraction ( n = 7/14, 50 %). CS complications ( n = 11 patients, 8.8 %) included CS or tributary thrombosis ( n = 7/102, 6.9 %) and CS dissection ( n = 4/102, 3.9 %). Major non-CS complications ( n = 2 patients, 1.6 %) included a cardiac tear requiring pericardiocentesis and thoracotomy ( n = 1, 0.8 %) and subclavian vein tear requiring surgical repair ( n = 1, 0.8 %). Minor non-CS complications ( n = 9 patients, 7.2 %) included a pneumothorax ( n = 1, 0.8 %), hematoma ( n = 2, 1.6 %), subclavian vein thrombosis (n = 3, x%), and blood transfusion ( n = 5, 4.0 %). A longer duration since implantation and larger lead diameter were associated with complex versus simple removal ( p < .0001 and p = .0009 respectively). Percutaneous CS lead removal is successful by simple traction alone in the vast majority of cases. CS leads in place greater than 4 years, however, often require complex extraction. Specific extraction techniques can be implemented when simple traction is unsuccessful without an appreciable increase in complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to assess the impact of targeted left ventricular (LV) lead placement on outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Background: Placement of the LV lead to the latest sites of contraction and away from the scar confers the best response to CRT. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to compare a targeted approach to LV lead placement with usual care. Methods: A total of 220 patients scheduled for CRT underwent baseline echocardiographic speckle-tracking 2-dimensional radial strain imaging and were then randomized 1:1 into 2 groups. In group 1 (TARGET [Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement toGuide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy]), the LV lead was positioned at the latest site of peak contraction with an amplitude of >10% to signify freedom from scar. In group 2 (control) patients underwent standard unguided CRT. Patients were classified by the relationship of the LV lead to the optimal site as concordant (at optimal site), adjacent (within 1 segment), or remote (≥2 segments away). The primary endpoint was a ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were clinical response (≥1 improvement in New York Heart Association functional class), all-cause mortality, and combined all-cause mortality and heart failure–related hospitalization. Results: The groups were balanced at randomization. In the TARGET group, there was a greater proportion of responders at 6 months (70% vs. 55%, p = 0.031), giving an absolute difference in the primary endpoint of 15% (95% confidence interval: 2% to 28%). Compared with controls, TARGET patients had a higher clinical response (83% vs. 65%, p = 0.003) and lower rates of the combined endpoint (log-rank test, p = 0.031). Conclusions: Compared with standard CRT treatment, the use of speckle-tracking echocardiography to the target LV lead placement yields significantly improved response and clinical status and lower rates of combined death and heart failure–related hospitalization. (Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to Guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [TARGET] study); ISRCTN19717943) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]