Challenging Implants Require Tools and Techniques Not Tips and Tricks

Challenging coronary sinus lead placement for CRT: A modified "Anchoring balloon" technique

An 80-year-old man with a history of complete heart block underwent dual chamber pacemaker implantation about a year ago. He returned to the hospital due to de novo heart failure caused by pacing-induced cardiomyopathy; hence, we planned to upgrade his pacemaker to a biventricular device. The initial strategy was to perform left bundle branch area pacing-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) combined with a coronary sinus (CS) lead. In this challenging case, the successful placement of a CS lead was hindered by a complicated combination of a large CS body linked to the left superior vena cava and a winding CS branch. However, utilizing readily available tools, such as the coronary balloon and Guide Plus II ST catheter, proved instrumental in overcoming these obstacles. As a result, LOT-CRT provided the patient with a safe alternative to surgical LV lead placement.

Is interventional technique better than the traditional over-the-wire method for left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy?

Background

Interventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (I-CRT) for left ventricular lead (LVL) placement works as a supplement to traditional (over-the-wire) cardiac resynchronization therapy (T-CRT). It has been argued that I-CRT is a time-consuming and complicated procedure.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in procedure-related, perioperative, postoperative, and clinical endpoints between I-CRT and T-CRT.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective, cohort study included all consecutive patients receiving a CRT-pacemaker/defibrillator between January 1, 2012, and August 31, 2018. Patients underwent T-CRT from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2015, and I-CRT from January 1, 2016, to August 31, 2018. We obtained data from patient record files, fluoroscopic images, and the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank-sum/linear regression for continuous variables and the Pearson χ2/Fisher exact for categorical variables.

Results

Optimal LVL placement was achieved in 82.7% of the I-CRT group and 76.8% of the T-CRT group (P = .015). In the I-CRT group, 99.0% of LVLs were quadripolar vs 55.3% in the T-CRT group (P <.001). Two or more leads were used during the procedure in 0.7% and 10.5% of all cases in the I-CRT and T-CRT groups, respectively (P <.001). Total implantation time was 81.0 minutes in the I-CRT group and 83.0 minutes in the T-CRT group (P = .41). Time with catheters in the coronary sinus was 45.0 minutes for the I-CRT group vs 37.0 minutes in the T-CRT group, respectively (P <.001).

Conclusion

I-CRT did not prolong total implantation time despite longer time with catheters in the coronary sinus. I-CRT allowed more optimal LVL placement, wider use of quadripolar leads, and use of fewer leads during the procedure.

Antidromic snare technique for re-implantation of a coronary sinus lead into the same cardiac vein after transvenous lead extraction: a case report

Background

After coronary sinus (CS) lead extraction in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), occlusion of the branch vessel from which CS lead was extracted is a major obstacle to re-implantation, particularly if that vessel is the only optimal vessel for resynchronization.

Case summary

A 75-year-old female who underwent CRT implantation 11 years prior presented with worsening dyspnoea, right ventricle-only pacing rhythm, and increased CS lead pacing threshold. Because she was a CRT responder, we decided to replace the malfunctioning CS lead. After successful extraction, the vessel from which CS lead was extracted was not visualized, and guidewire re-insertion attempts failed. No other branch vessels suitable for re-implantation were observed. Fortunately, distal portion of the target vessel was viewed by a retrograde flow of contrast. A guidewire was advanced retrograde into the target vein via a connecting vessel, and the distal end of the guidewire was snared around CS ostium and then pulled out of the sheath. A new CS lead was inserted through the distal end of the guidewire and successfully implanted antegrade into the same target vein using a veno-venous loop of the guidewire ('anti-dromic snare technique'). The patient was discharged 2 days after the procedure without complications.

Discussion

Antegrade re-implantation of CS lead may not be possible after extracting CS leads with long dwell times, possibly due to extraction-induced vessel occlusion. If the occluded vessel is the only proper vessel for CS lead re-implantation, the anti-dromic snare technique could be a safe and effective bail-out strategy.

Left ventricular lead implantation failure in an unselected nationwide cohort

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) lead implantation is often the most challenging aspect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) procedures; early studies reported implant failure rates in ∼10% of cases.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to define rates, reasons for, and factors independently associated with LV lead implant failure.

METHODS

We studied patients with left bundle branch block and ejection fraction ≤ 35% who underwent planned de novo transvenous CRT implantation (2010-2016) and were reported to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Independent predictors of LV lead implant failure were determined using logistic regression; age, sex, and variables with a univariable P value of <.15 were considered for inclusion in the model.

RESULTS

Of the 111,802 patients who underwent a planned CRT procedure, 3.6% of patients (n = 3979) had LV lead implant failure. Reasons for implant failure included venous access (7.5%), coronary sinus access (64.3%), tributary vein access (13.5%), coronary sinus dissection (7.6%), unacceptable threshold (4.4%), and diaphragmatic stimulation (1.7%). Significant independent predictors of LV lead implant failure included younger age (odds ratio [OR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1.01-1.02), female sex (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.29-1.47), black race (vs white, OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.32-1.57), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.08-1.40), QRS duration (OR 1.055 per 10 ms; 95% CI 1.038-1.072 per 10 ms), obstructive sleep apnea (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04-1.24), and implantation by a physician without specialized training (vs electrophysiology trained, OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.34-1.76).

CONCLUSION

LV lead implant failure is uncommon in the current era and is most commonly due to coronary sinus access failure. Predictors of LV lead implant failure included younger age, female sex, black race, Hispanic ethnicity, increased QRS duration, sleep apnea, and absence of electrophysiology training.

Troubleshooting the difficult left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: current status and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important option in modern cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) treatment. Techniques for left ventricular (LV) lead placement in the coronary sinus and its tributaries are neither well described nor studied systematically, despite attention regarding where to place the LV lead.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents specialized tools and techniques to overcome some of the most common problems encountered in LV lead placement in CRT. These tools and techniques are termed Interventional-CRT (I-CRT), as they share technology with other interventional procedures. The main principle in I-CRT, compared to the traditional Over-The-Wire technique, is to add better support for delivery of the LV lead through dedicated inner catheters that also allows more flexibility with use of more guidewires and better imaging with direct venography in the target vein.

EXPERT OPINION

Even though CRT is an established therapeutic option, there are still many challenges in the implementation of the therapy. The cornerstone should be an ease of delivering the CRT and specifically implantation of the LV lead. Therefore, knowledge of the principles in I-CRT, as I-CRT could make implantation simpler in general and easier to reach the optimal LV pacing site.

Anatomical variations in Coronary Venous Drainage: Challenges and Solutions in Delivering Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

AIMS

To investigate the abnormalities of the coronary venous system in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and describe methods for circumventing the resulting difficulties.

METHODS

From 4 implanting institutes, data of all CRT implants between October 2008-October 2020 were screened for abnormal cardiac venous anatomy, defined as an anatomical variation not conforming to the accepted 'normal' anatomy. Patient demographics, procedural detail and subsequent left ventricle (LV) lead pacing indices were collected.

RESULTS

From a total of 3548 CRT implants, 15 (0.42%) patients (80% male) of 72.2±10.6 years in age with a LV ejection fraction of 34±10.3% were identified to have had an abnormal cardiac venous anatomy over the study period. There were 13 cases of persistent left side superior vena cava (pLSVC), 5 of which had coronary sinus ostium atresia (CSOA) including 2 with an 'unroofed' coronary sinus (CS); 1 patient had a unique anomalous origin of the CS and 1 patient had an isolated CSOA. In total 14 patients (60% repeat attempt) had successful percutaneous implant under general anaesthesia (46.7%) via the cephalic vein (59.1%), using the femoral approach (53.3%) for levophase venography and/or pull-through, including 1 case of endocardial LV implant. Pacing follow-up over 37.64±37.6 months demonstrated LV lead threshold between 0.62-2.9 volts (pulsewidth 0.4-1.5 milliseconds) in all cases; 5 patients died within 2.92±1.6 years of successful implant.

CONCLUSION

CRT devices can be implanted percutaneously even in the presence of substantial abnormalities of coronary venous anatomy. Alternative routes of venous access may be required. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Orthodromic and Antidromic Snare Techniques for Left Ventricular Lead Implantation in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

The snare technique can be used to overcome unsuitable cardiac venous anatomies for left ventricular (LV) lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) procedures. However, limited data exist regarding performance of the snare technique. We classified 262 patients undergoing CRT procedure into the snare (n = 20) or conventional group (n = 242) according to the LV lead implantation method. We compared the safety, efficacy, and composite outcome (all-cause death and heart failure readmission) at 3 years post-implant between the snare and conventional groups. In the snare group, all LV leads were implanted safely using orthodromic (n = 15) or antidromic (n = 5) techniques, and no immediate complications occurred including vessel perforation, tamponade, and lead dislodgement. During follow-up, LV lead threshold and impedance remained stable without requiring lead revision in the snare group. There were no significant between-group differences regarding LV ejection fraction increase (12 ± 13% vs. 12 ± 13%, p = 0.929) and LV end-systolic volume reduction (18 ± 48% vs. 28 ± 31%, p = 0.501). Both groups exhibited comparable CRT-response rates (62.5% vs. 60.6%, p = 1.000). The risk of primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups (25.9% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.817). In patients who failed conventional LV lead implantation for CRT, the snare technique could be a safe and effective solution to overcome difficult coronary venous anatomy.

Marshall to the rescue in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Left ventricular lead placement in coronary sinus ostial atresia

This case highlights the importance of proper identification of congenital anomalies of the coronary sinus for the successful placement of left ventricular lead during cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation. We discuss an alternate route for left ventricular lead placement via the vein of Marshall when the coronary sinus ostium in the right atrium was atretic and was facing difficulty initially in detecting the anomaly.

Snare technique for coronary sinus cannulation in cardiac resynchronization therapy

Purpose

Methods and results

Conclusion

Successful use of venovenous snare to fix the wire in a collateral vein for proper placement of the left ventricular lead during cardiac resynchronization therapy: a case report

Background

In cardiac resynchronization therapy, left ventricular (LV) lead placement at the desired position may be difficult due to abnormal coronary sinus (CS) and lateral vein anatomy. We present a case with difficult anatomy in which we used ‘an indigenous snare’ made from hardware used for coronary angioplasty procedures, which is available in any cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Case summary

A 52-year-old man presented with dyspnoea due to chronic heart failure was evaluated for cardiac resynchronization therapy. The LV lead was difficult to advance into the only target lateral branch of the CS due to a combination of angulation and proximal stenosis. Balloon dilation was tried first, but we failed to track the LV lead. We formed a venovenous loop, advancing the coronary guidewire 0.014″ into the posterolateral vein; subsequently into the middle cardiac vein via a collateral. The wire was advanced into the CS and then to superior vena cava. The guidewire then snared through the same left subclavian vein and exteriorized by using indigenous snare. Over this loop, the LV lead of the cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator device was implanted successfully.

Discussion

We have used the snare technique, with the use of a snare prepared from a coronary guidewire. Use of such an indigenous snare has not been described before in the literature. The hardware used in this case is routinely used for coronary angioplasty procedures in all catheterization labs. The importance of our case is that no special hardware like dedicated snare was required to negotiate the LV lead at its desired location.

Navigating Challenging Left Ventricular Lead Placements for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a mainstay in the management of heart failure patients with electrical dyssynchrony. Left ventricular (LV) lead positioning remains an important variable that predicts the response to CRT. Anatomical and technical challenges can hinder optimal LV lead placement using traditional lead implantation approaches. Knowledge of normal anatomical variants and common anomalies is essential for successful LV lead implants. With advancements in tools and techniques for LV lead delivery, the implanting electrophysiologist can target the optimal LV pacing site, rather than accepting a suboptimal location that is less likely to provide clinical benefit. In this review, we discuss various challenges to achieving optimal LV lead implantation and present strategies to overcome them.