Long-term outcome of atrial synchronous mode pacing in patients with atrioventricular block using a single lead

VDD Lead Extraction-Differences with Other Leads and Practical Tips in Management

Background: VDD (atrial sensing, ventricular sensing/pacing) leads are relatively rarely implanted; therefore, experience in their extraction is very limited. We aimed to investigate whether VDD lead removal may be a risk factor for the increased complexity of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) or major complications. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3808 TLE procedures (including 103 patients with VDD leads). Results: If TLE included VDD lead removal, procedure duration (lead dilation time) was prolonged, complicated extractions were slightly more common, and more advanced tools were required. This is partly due to longer implant duration (in patients with VDD systems-135.2 months; systems without VDD leads-109.3 months; p < 0.001), more frequent presence of abandoned leads (all systems containing VDD leads-22.33% and all systems without VDD leads-10.77%), and partly to the younger age of patients with VDD leads (51.74 vs. 57.72 years; p < 0.001, in the remaining patients) at the time of system implantation. VDD lead extraction does not increase the risk of major complications (1.94 vs. 2.34%; p = 0.905). Conclusions: The extraction of VDD leads may be considered a risk factor for increased procedure complexity, but not for major complications. However, this is not a direct result of VDD lead extraction but specific characteristics of the patients with VDD leads. Operator skill and team experience combined with special custom maneuvers can enable favorable results to be achieved despite the specific design of VDD leads, even with older VDD lead models.

Single-lead VDD pacing: a literature review on short-term and long-term performance

INTRODUCTION

VDD pacing system was introduced more than 30 years ago. Its use is considered by the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiac pacing as a potential alternative to dual chambers system for patients with atrioventricular block and normal sinus node function.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we performed a narrative review of current literature in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of this pacing system. VDD system allows the maintenance of AV synchronous pacing and its hemodynamic advantages. Some disadvantages may be related to the non-negligible incidence of atrial undersensing and the possible subsequent need for upgrade to DDD system. On the other hand, shorter implantation time and lower complications rate may be advantages.

EXPERT OPINION

In the modern pacing era, VDD pacing system struggles to find its own space. However, it may still be considered as a valuable alternative to a dual-chamber pacemaker for selected patients, in specific clinical scenarios.

Single-Pass VDD Pacing Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Reliable Alternative

(1) Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems can be simplified by excluding the atrial lead and using a Ventricular-Dual-Dual (VDD) pacing lead. Possible disadvantages might include atrial undersensing and Ventricular-Ventricular-Inhibition (VVI) pacing. Because literature data concerning these systems are scarce, we analyzed their benefits and technical safety. (2) Methods: this retrospective study compared 50 patients implanted with VDD–CRT systems (group A), mainly because of unfavorable venous anatomy concerning the complication rate, with 103 subjects with Dual-Dual-Dual (DDD)–CRT systems (group B) implanted during 2000–2016 and 49 (group C) during 2016–2020. To analyze the functional parameters of the devices, we selected subgroups of 27 patients (subgroup A) and 47 (subgroup B) patients with VDD–CRT in 2000–2016, and 36 subjects (subgroup C) with DDD–CRT implanted were selected in 2017–2020. (3) Results: There was a trend of a lower complication rate with VDD–CRT systems, especially concerning infections during 2000–2016 (p = 0.0048), but similar results were obtained after rigorous selection of patients and employment of an upgraded design of devices/leads. With a proper device programing, CRT pacing had similar results, atrial undersensing being minimal (p = 0.65). For VDD-systems, VVI pacing was recorded only 1.7 ± 2.24% of the time. (4) Conclusions: In patients with a less favorable venous anatomy, VDD–CRT systems may represent a safe alternative regarding complications rates and functional parameters.