Tricuspid Valve Dysfunction Caused by Right Ventricular Leads

Effects of Cardiac Contractility Modulation Electrodes on Tricuspid Regurgitation in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is an innovative therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction delivered by a cardiac implantable device (Optimizer Smart^®). One of the most prominent periprocedural complications common to all cardiac implantable devices (CIDs) is tricuspid regurgitation (TR) due to the placement of the right ventricular endocardial leads. To date, no published studies have assessed the changes in the TR degree in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) after the implantation of cardiac contractility modulation therapy devices.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the implantation of the trans-tricuspid leads required to deliver CCM therapy on the severity of TR in patients with HFrEF who previously underwent ICD implantation.

METHODS

We enrolled 30 HFrEF patients who underwent CCM therapy between November 2020 and October 2021. For all the patients, echocardiographic evaluations of TR were performed according to current guidelines 24 h before and six months after the Optimizer Smart^® implant was applied.

RESULTS

At the 6-month follow-up, the grade of TR remained unchanged compared to the preimplant grade. The value of the vena contracta (VC) of TR was 0.40 ± 0.19 cm in the preimplant period and 0.45 ± 0.21 cm at the 6-month follow-up (p = 0.33). Similarly, the TR proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) radius value was unchanged at follow-up (0.54 ± 0.22 cm vs. 0.62 ± 0.20 cm; p = 0.18). No statistically significant difference existed between the preimplant VC and PISA radius values, irrespective of the device type.

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of right ventricular electrodes for the delivery of CCM therapy did not worsen tricuspid regurgitation in patients with HFrEF and ICD.

Tricuspid Regurgitation Related to Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: An Integrative Review

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices, including permanent pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy, has dramatically increased in recent years. The interaction between the device lead and tricuspid valve leaflets is a potential cause of tricuspid regurgitation which in turn has an impact on morbidity and mortality. Echocardiography is necessary for grading of tricuspid regurgitation severity. The use of three-dimensional imaging helps determine whether the device lead is interfering with normal leaflet coaptation. Early identification of lead-related tricuspid regurgitation is critical to select the optimal treatment, which may include lead extraction or even tricuspid valve repair/replacement in severe cases. This review aims to provide a thorough assessment of the evidence about lead-associated tricuspid regurgitation, the benefits of using 3D echocardiography with some technical considerations, and finally, propose a treatment algorithm.

Implantation of leadless pacing systems in patients early after tricuspid valve surgery: A feasible option

BACKGROUND

After tricuspid valve (TV) surgery due to tricuspid regurgitation (TR), patients needing a permanent pacemaker often receive an epicardial lead implantation. This may result in delayed recovery from open-chest surgery and increased postoperative risk. Leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation may represent a valuable option.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 14 consecutive patients underwent LPM implantation (Micra Transcatheter Pacing System, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) early after TV surgery. The pacing indication in those patients was atrial fibrillation with a slow atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction or atrial fibrillation and a concomitant AV block III. Three patients already had a pacemaker prior to surgery, which was explanted during TV repair. Three patients received a valve replacement with a bioprosthesis, while the remaining eight patients received a TV repair. All procedural data and device measurements during and after LPM implantation were recorded. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed prior and post LPM implantation, showing no changes in TV or bioprosthesis performance. The device measurements were within an adequate range: threshold: 0.83 ± 0.34 V @ 0.24 ± 0 ms, impedance: 480 ± 58.88 ohm, and R-wave: 10.10 ± 3.60 mV. LPM implantation was successful in all patients with a mean procedural time of 32 ± 11.8 minutes, fluoroscopy time of 3.71 ± 3.15 minutes, and dose-area product of 536.67 ± 811.26 cGy/m² .

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of an LPM early after TV surgery is a feasible option. LPM implantation does not affect TV or bioprosthesis performance in transthoracic echocardiography.

Leadless pacemaker implantation under direct visualization during valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

The leadless cardiac pacemaker is typically implanted percutaneously and has been widely used for patients who have already undergone valve surgery. We sought to determine the feasibility and safety of implanting the leadless pacemaker under direct visualization during valve surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive adult patients (n = 15) who underwent implantation of a leadless pacemaker under direct visualization at the time of valve surgery. Indications for single-chamber pacing were sick sinus syndrome with pauses (53.3%), atrial fibrillation with slow ventricular rates (13.3%) or complete heart block (6.6%), and elevated risk for postoperative heart block (26.6%). Leadless pacemaker performance and pacing percentage were assessed.

RESULTS

Patients' age was 67.5 ± 17 years, 6 patients (40%) were male, and 14 patients (93%) had atrial fibrillation. Isolated tricuspid valve replacement was performed in 5 patients (33.3%), and the remainder underwent multivalve surgery that included concomitant tricuspid valve repair/replacement. In 93% of the patients (n = 14), the immediate post-cardiopulmonary bypass pacing thresholds were normal (≤2.0 V at 0.24 ms) and normalized in the remaining patient by the next morning. The impedance/sensing values were normal and stable through follow-up (151 ± 119 days) in all patients. Reliable leadless pacemaker performance allowed for deferral of temporary epicardial wires in 11 patients (73%). There were no procedural complications or device malfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Leadless cardiac pacemaker implantation during valve surgery is feasible and safe. This hybrid approach to pacing may simplify the perioperative management of patients undergoing valve surgery who have an indication for single-chamber pacing.