Prophylactic epicardial left ventricular lead implantation for biventricular pacing during operations

Long-Term Performance of Epicardial versus Transvenous Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Aims: to study the technical performance of epicardial left ventricular (LV) leads placed via video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), compared to transvenously placed leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods: From 2001 until 2013, a total of 644 lead placement procedures were performed for CRT. In the case of unsuccessful transvenous LV lead placement, the patient received an epicardial LV lead. Study groups consist of 578 patients with a transvenous LV lead and 66 with an epicardial LV lead. The primary endpoint was LV-lead failure necessitating a replacement or deactivation. The secondary endpoint was energy consumption. Results: The mean follow up was 5.9 years (epicardial: 5.5 ± 3.1, transvenous: 5.9 ± 3.5). Transvenous leads failed significantly more frequently than epicardial leads with a total of 66 (11%) in the transvenous leads group vs. 2 (3%) in the epicardial lead group (p = 0.037). Lead energy consumption was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Epicardial lead placement is feasible, safe and shows excellent long-term performance compared to transvenous leads. Epicardial lead placement should be considered when primary transvenous lead placement fails or as a primary lead placement strategy in challenging cases.

Five-year follow-up of transvenous and epicardial left ventricular leads: experience with more than 1000 leads

OBJECTIVES

Transvenous coronary sinus leads are considered to be the gold standard for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, in patients with abnormal coronary vein anatomy, the epicardial leads can be an alternative. Data comparing durability and performance of these 2 lead types are limited. In order to provide clarity, we investigated patients receiving CRT system in our centre.

METHODS

One thousand and fifty-three consecutive patients scheduled for CRT implantation were retrospectively analysed. From these, 895 received transvenous coronary sinus and 158 epicardial left ventricular (LV) leads. Lead-specific as well as LV functional parameters have been evaluated in 60 months' follow-up.

RESULTS

Technical characteristics (pacing threshold, impedance and sensing) of both lead types remained stable during the whole observation period. Whereas an early revision (<6 month) was noted in 5.4% of transvenous leads, no reintervention has been necessary for epicardial leads. During the 5-year observation period, a lead revisions rate of 10.2% for transvenous leads and 1.9% for epicardial leads were detected. Regarding CRT efficacy, excellent results were achieved for both electrode types. In both groups, a statistically significant reduction of New York Heart Association class (2.85-2.13 and 2.96-2.09), increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (24.6-32.6% and 27.2-34.6%), reduction of left ventricular end-systolic diameter/left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and reduction in degree of mitral valve insufficiency could be observed over the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate safety and functional efficacy of both transvenous and epicardial leads. Moreover, in long-term follow-up, a commendable durability and performance were found for both lead types. Thus, epicardial leads represent a good alternative when transvenous implantation fails.

Dramatic improvement of left ventricular function after switching the ventricular pacing site from the right ventricular apex to the left ventricular free wall via a left mini thoracotomy: a case report

The case of a patient with pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy in whom left ventricular (LV) function was dramatically improved after switching the ventricular pacing site from the right ventricular apex to the LV free wall via a left mini thoracotomy due to pacemaker-associated infective endocarditis (PAIE) is presented. Our experience suggests that a surgically implanted epicardial LV lead on the LV lateral wall can be a good alternative pacing site that preserves LV function, especially in patients with PAIE.