Epicardial left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients via a video-assisted thoracoscopic technique: Long-term outcome

Assessing cardiac resynchronization therapy response in heart failure patients: a comparative analysis of efficacy and outcomes between transvenous and epicardial leads

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for selected heart failure (HF) patients. Although transvenous implantation is the standard method, it is not feasible in some patients, so the epicardial lead emerges as an alternative. We aim to compare CRT response, procedure-related complications, and the occurrence of clinical outcomes between patients with transvenous and epicardial leads. In a single-center retrospective study, we enrolled consecutive HF patients submitted to CRT implantation with a defibrillator between 2013 and 2022. Clinical response was defined as an improvement of at least one of the New York Heart Association classes with no occurrence of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization in the first year of follow-up. Echocardiographic response was attained with an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction 10% or a reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic volume >15% at 6-12 months after CRT implantation. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization) and all-cause mortality were evaluated. From a total of 149 patients, 38% (n=57) received an epicardial lead. Clinical (63% versus 60%, p=0.679) and echocardiographic (63% versus 60%, p=0.679) responses were similar between the transvenous and epicardial groups. Patients in the transvenous group had a shorter hospital stay (2 versus 7 days, p<0.001). Procedure-related complications were comparable between groups (24% versus 28%, p=0.572), but left ventricular lead-related complications were more frequent in the transvenous group (14% versus 2%). During a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the rate of MACE was 30% (n=44), with no differences in both groups (p=0.591), neither regarding HF hospitalization (p=0.917) nor cardiovascular mortality (p=0.060). Nevertheless, the epicardial group had a higher rate of all-cause mortality (35% versus 20%, p=0.005), the majority occurring during long-term follow-up (>12 months), with no deaths in the postoperative period. Considering the comparable rates of CRT response, procedure-related complications, and MACE between groups, we conclude that epicardial lead is a feasible alternative for CRT when transvenous lead implantation is not possible. The occurrence of a higher number of all-cause deaths in epicardial patients in the long-term follow-up was mainly due to infectious complications (unrelated to the lead) and the progression of oncological/chronic diseases.

Evolving Concepts in Cardiac Physiologic Pacing in the Era of Conduction System Pacing

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP) has become a well-established therapy for patients with cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) in the presence of a left bundle branch block. In addition, CPP can be highly beneficial in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and patients with existing cardiomyopathy expected to have a right ventricular pacing burden of >40%. The benefits of CPP with traditional biventricular pacing are only realized if adequate resynchronization can be achieved. However, left ventricular lead implantation can be limited by individual anatomic variation within the coronary venous system and can be adversely affected by underlying abnormal myocardial substrate (i.e., scar tissue), especially if located within the basal lateral wall. In the last 7 years the investigation of conduction system pacing (CSP) and its potential salutary benefits are being realized and have led to a rapid evolution in the field of cardiac resynchronization pacing. However, supportive evidence for CSP for patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization remains limited compared with data available for biventricular cardiac resynchronization, mostly derived from leading CSP investigative centers. In this review, we perform an up-to-date comprehensive review of the available literature on CPP.

A case report of left ventricular lead implantation via total three-dimensional transseptal puncture after tricuspid valve replacement

Background

Ventricular lead implantation is relatively difficult for patients with bradyarrhythmia after tricuspid valve replacement. Right atrial (RA) abnormalities often occurred in patients with tricuspid valve disease; conventional coronary sinus (CS) lead implantation is not easy to operate. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a safe method for implanting LV endocardial leads in patients after tricuspid valve replacement.

Case presentation

A 76-year-old Asian woman who had been implanted with a metal tricuspid valve replacement 4 years ago was admitted to the Department of Cardiology for pacemaker implantation due to transient blackout related to persistent atrial fibrillation with long pauses. The patient's family rejected the surgical placement of an epicardial LV lead. Therefore, we first intended to operate LV lead implantation through the CS; however, the orifice of the CS was virtually difficult to seek. Ultimately, we utilized total 3-dimensional (T3D) transseptal puncture (TSP) under the guidance of the CARTO 3 system; thus, we implanted the LV endocardial lead, which contributed to the accurate puncture of the central fossa ovalis and ensured the safety of TSP in the case of RA enlargement. Meanwhile, the CARTO 3 system contributed to the localization of the LV lead to the LV free wall during implantation. All the intraoperative and postoperative pacemaker parameters were favorable; no intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred.

Conclusions

This case report may provide a novel surgical approach for LV lead implantation in patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement or patients who may benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy but failed to implant CS lead.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic epicardial pacing: A contemporary overview

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has revolutionized the approach and management of pulmonary and cardiac diseases, and its applications have significantly expanded in the last two decades. Beyond its established role in thoracic procedures, VATS has also emerged as a valuable technique for various electrophysiological procedures, including pacemaker implantations, ablation procedures, and left atrial appendage exclusion. This paper presents a thorough review of the existing literature on pacing procedures performed using a VATS approach. By analyzing and synthesizing the available studies, we aim to provide an in-depth understanding of the current knowledge and advancements in VATS-based pacing procedures. A key focus of this review is the detailed description of implantation techniques via a VATS approach.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Minimally invasive epicardial left-ventricular lead implantation and simultaneous left atrial appendage closure

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with heart failure resulting in a high prevalence of AF in patients receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) implantation. In patients, unsuitable for transvenous left ventricular (LV)-lead implantation, epicardial LV-lead implantation represents a valuable alternative. Epicardial LV-lead placement can be achieved totally thoracoscopical or via minimally invasive left lateral thoracotomy. In patients with atrial fibrillation, concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) clipping is feasible via the same access. Therefore, the aim of our study was the analysis of safety and efficacy of epicardial LV lead implantation and concomitant LAA clipping via minimally invasive left-lateral thoracotomy.

Methods

Between December 2019 and March 2022, 8 patients received minimally invasive left atrial LV-lead implantation with concomitant LAA closure using the AtriClip. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed to intraoperatively guide and control LAA closure.

Results

Mean patients age was 64 ± 11.2 years, 67% were male patients. Minimally invasive left-lateral thoracotomy was used in 6 patients while a totally thoracoscopic approach was performed in 2 cases. Epicardial lead implantation was successfully performed in all patients with good pacing threshold (mean 0.8 ± 0.2 V) and sensing values (10.1 ± 2.3 mV). Posterolateral position of the LV lead was achieved in all patients. Furthermore, successful LAA closure was confirmed during TEE in all patients. No procedure-related complications occurred in any of the patients. Two patients additionally received simultaneous laser lead extraction during the same procedure. Complete lead extraction was achieved in both patients. All patients were extubated in the OR and had an uneventful postoperative course.

Conclusion

Our study highlights a novel treatment approach for patients with atrial fibrillation and the necessity of epicardial LV leads. Placement of a posterolateral LV lead position with concomitant occlusion of the left atrial appendage via a minimally-invasive left-lateral thoracotomy or even a totally thoracoscopic approach is safe and feasible with superior cosmetic result and complete occlusion of the left atrial appendage.

Left-bundle branch pacing as bail-out strategy after failed coronary sinus lead placement for cardiac resynchronization: a case report

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by implantation of an endocardial coronary sinus (CS) pacing lead is an established heart failure therapy. The recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on cardiac pacing and CRT recommend conduction system pacing (CSP) as a potential bail-out therapy in patients with previously unsuccessful CS-lead implantation. We present a case in which unsuccessful implantation of a CS pacing and ineffective QRS correction by His-bundle pacing (HBP) was overcome by left-bundle branch pacing (LBBP) to achieve cardiac resynchronization.

Case summary

The patient had to undergo revision of a CS lead for CRT due to rising pacing thresholds and pacing impedance. CS-lead implantation was omitted by a stenotic posterolateral CS branch. HBP did not lead to adequate QRS correction. The patient underwent successful LBB lead implantation as bail-out therapy. After LBBP lead implantation electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters were evident of effective CRT.

Discussion

Conduction system pacing may be an alternative to CS pacing for CRT in heart failure patients, which is endorsed by the current European guidelines. LBBP may overcome limitations of HBP and provide an alternative to other strategies such as surgical implantation of epicardial left-ventricular pacing leads. Further studies are needed to fully clarify the role of LBBP for heart failure treatment.

Thoracoscopic Implantation of Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

(1) Background: Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of epicardial left ventricular (LV) lead placement using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). (2) Methods: Acute and post-discharge outcomes of CRT were compared between patients with epicardial LV leads (Epicardial-LV group, n = 13) and those with endocardial LV leads (Endocardial-LV group, n = 243). (3) Results: Epicardial LV leads were implanted via VATS alone (n = 8) or along with mini-thoracotomy (n = 5), for failed endocardial implantation (n = 11) or recurrent lead dislodgement (n = 2). All epicardial procedures under general anesthesia with one-lung ventilation were successfully completed in 1.0 ± 0.4 h without phrenic nerve stimulation. LV pacing thresholds in the epicardial-LV (1.5 ± 1.0 V) and endocardial-LV (1.3 ± 0.8 V) were comparable (p = 0.651). All patients were discharged alive post-VATS 8.8 ± 3.9 days. During the follow-up (34.3 ± 28.6 months), all patients with epicardial LV leads stayed alive except for one cardiac death post-CRT 14 months and one heart transplantation post-CRT 30 months. All epicardial LV leads maintained stable performance without dislodgement/significant changes in pacing threshold/impedance. LV lead dislodgement occurred only in endocardial-LV (7/243, 2.9%). Efficacy in both groups was comparable in terms of QRS narrowing, increase in LV ejection fraction, and survival free of cardiac death, or heart-failure-related hospitalization. (4) Conclusions: Epicardial LV lead placement using VATS can be a safe and effective alternative to endocardial implantation, with comparable acute and post-discharge outcomes achieved by both approaches.

Totally thoracoscopic concomitant left atrial appendage closure and left ventricular epicardial lead implantation

Atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure due to ventricular dyssynchrony needs decision-making on the rate and rhythm control strategies together with cardiac resynchronization therapy and antithrombotic prophylaxis. Transvenous biventricular pacing and percutaneous appendage closure in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation with high bleeding risk are valid therapeutic options but anatomical exclusion criteria could be present. Here, we report two patients who underwent successful totally thoracoscopic concomitant left appendage occlusion and epicardial left ventricular lead implantation.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Hemodialysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients-An Experience-Based Narrative Review

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.

Integration of activation maps of epicardial veins in computational cardiac electrophysiology

In this work we address the issue of validating the monodomain equation used in combination with the Bueno-Orovio ionic model for the prediction of the activation times in cardiac electro-physiology of the left ventricle. To this aim, we consider four patients who suffered from Left Bundle Branch Block (LBBB). We use activation maps performed at the septum as input data for the model and maps at the epicardial veins for the validation. In particular, a first set (half) of the latter are used to estimate the conductivities of the patient and a second set (the remaining half) to compute the errors of the numerical simulations. We find an excellent agreement between measures and numerical results. Our validated computational tool could be used to accurately predict activation times at the epicardial veins with a short mapping, i.e. by using only a part (the most proximal) of the standard acquisition points, thus reducing the invasive procedure and exposure to radiation.

Epicardial left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients via a video-assisted thoracoscopic technique: Long-term outcome

BACKGROUND

Epicardial placement of the left ventricular (LV) lead via a video-assisted thoracoscopic (VAT) approach is an alternative to the standard transvenous technique.

HYPOTHESIS

Long-term safety and efficacy of VAT and transvenous LV lead implantation are comparable. To test it, we reviewed our experience and we compared the outcomes of patients who underwent implantation with the two techniques.

METHODS

The VAT procedure is performed under general anesthesia, with oro-tracheal intubation and right-sided ventilation, and requires two 5 mm and one 15 mm thoracoscopic ports. After pericardiotomy at the spot of the epicardial target area, pacing measurements are taken and a spiral screw electrode is anchored at the final pacing site. The electrode is then tunneled to the pectoral pocket and connected to the device.

RESULTS

105 patients were referred to our center for epicardial LV lead implantation. After pre-operative assessment, 5 patients were excluded because of concomitant conditions precluding surgery. The remaining 100 underwent the procedure. LV lead implantation was successful in all patients (median pacing threshold 0.8 ± 0.5 V, no phrenic nerve stimulation) and cardiac resynchronization therapy was established in all but one patient. The median procedure time was 75 min. During a median follow-up of 24 months, there were no differences in terms of death, cardiovascular hospitalizations or device-related complications vs the group of 100 patients who had undergone transvenous implantation. Patients of both groups displayed similar improvements in terms of ventricular reverse remodeling and functional status.

CONCLUSIONS

Our VAT approach proved safe and effective, and is a viable alternative in the case of failed transvenous LV implantation.