Surgical epicardial left ventricular lead versus coronary sinus lead placement in biventricular pacing
- PMID: 15691676
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.09.029
Surgical epicardial left ventricular lead versus coronary sinus lead placement in biventricular pacing
Abstract
Objective: Biventricular pacing has demonstrated improvement in cardiac function in treating congestive heart failure (CHF). Two different operative strategies (coronary sinus vs. epicardial stimulation) for left ventricular (LV) pacing were compared.
Methods: Since April 1999, a total of 86 patients (pts, age: 63+/-10 years) with depressed systolic LV function (mean ejection fraction 24+/-9%), left bundle-branch-block (mean QRS 182+/-22 ms) and congestive heart failure NYHA III or higher were enrolled. For biventricular stimulation coronary sinus (CS) leads were placed in 79 pts. Nine of these devices were converted to surgical epicardial LV-leads, because of CS-lead failure. In 7 patients epicardial LV-leads were initially implanted surgically, accounting for a total of 16 pts with surgical placed epicardial steroid-eluting LV-leads. For these, a limited left-lateral thoracotomy (7+/-4 cm) was used. Thirty-three (38%) pts had an indication for a defibrillator. The mean follow-up time was 16.4+/-15.4 months (0.1-45 months), representing 107.1 patient-years.
Results: In the biventricular pacing mode, QRS duration decreased to 143+/-16 ms (P<0.001). Threshold capture of the CS-leads increased significantly compared to surgically placed epicardial leads (18 month control: 2.2+/-1.4V/0.5 ms vs. 0.7+/-0.3V/0.5 ms), which had no increase in threshold (P<0.001). At the 18 month follow-up 7 CS-leads had a threshold of >4V/0.5 ms vs. epicardial leads which were under 1.1V/0.5 ms, except for one (1.8V/0.5 ms). After CS-lead implantation 25 LV-lead related complications occurred, (failed implantation, CS-dissection, loss of pacing capture, diaphragm stimulation or lead dislodgment), vs. one dislodgement after surgical epicardial lead placement (P<0.05). Correct lead positioning (obtuse marginal branch area) was achieved in all surgical epicardial placements but only in 70% with CS-leads (P<0.03). In the follow up period, 9 pts died (4 cardiac related). Heart transplantation was necessary in 4 pts due to deterioration of the cardiomyopathy.
Conclusions: Surgical epicardial lead placement revealed excellent long-term results and a lower LV-related complication rate compared to CS-leads. Although, the approach via limited thoracotomy for biventricular pacing is associated with 'more surgery', it is a safe and reliable technique and should be considered as an equal alternative.
Comment in
-
Surgical implantation of left ventricular epicardial leads for cardiac resynchronization.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005 Jul;28(1):184-5; author reply 185. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.03.027. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005. PMID: 15936206 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Long-term follow-up of biventricular pacing using a totally endocardial approach in patients with end-stage cardiac failure.Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007 Jan;30 Suppl 1:S31-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00599.x. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007. PMID: 17302712
-
Epicardial lead implantation techniques for biventricular pacing via left lateral mini-thoracotomy, video-assisted thoracoscopy, and robotic approach.Heart Surg Forum. 2003;6(5):412-7. Heart Surg Forum. 2003. PMID: 14721823
-
Epicardial left ventricular lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy: optimal pace site selection with pressure-volume loops.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004 Jun;127(6):1641-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.10.052. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004. PMID: 15173718
-
Efficacy of prophylactic epicardial pacing leads in children and young adults.Ann Thorac Surg. 2004 Jul;78(1):197-202; discussion 202-3. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.02.008. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004. PMID: 15223427 Review.
-
Does cardiac resynchronisation therapy improve survival and quality of life in patients with end-stage heart failure?Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2008 Dec;7(6):1141-6. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2008.183707. Epub 2008 Jun 9. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2008. PMID: 18541605 Review.
Cited by
-
Thoracoscopic left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy.J Korean Med Sci. 2012 Dec;27(12):1595-7. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2012.27.12.1595. Epub 2012 Dec 7. J Korean Med Sci. 2012. PMID: 23255865 Free PMC article.
-
Long-Term Performance of Epicardial versus Transvenous Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.J Clin Med. 2023 Sep 5;12(18):5766. doi: 10.3390/jcm12185766. J Clin Med. 2023. PMID: 37762709 Free PMC article.
-
A multifunctional soft robot for cardiac interventions.Sci Adv. 2023 Oct 27;9(43):eadi5559. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adi5559. Epub 2023 Oct 25. Sci Adv. 2023. PMID: 37878705 Free PMC article.
-
Left ventricular endocardial pacing in cardiac resynchronisation therapy: Moving from bench to bedside.Neth Heart J. 2012 Mar;20(3):118-24. doi: 10.1007/s12471-011-0210-5. Neth Heart J. 2012. PMID: 22068734 Free PMC article.
-
Surgically placed left ventricular leads provide similar outcomes to percutaneous leads in patients with failed coronary sinus lead placement.Heart Rhythm. 2010 May;7(5):619-25. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.01.014. Epub 2010 Jan 20. Heart Rhythm. 2010. PMID: 20156615 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous