Bioprosthetic Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation Associated With Pacemaker or Defibrillator Lead Implantation

Leadless pacemaker implantation following tricuspid interventions: multicenter collaboration of feasibility and safety

BACKGROUND

Permanent pacing is often required following valve intervention (either surgical or percutaneous); however, tricuspid interventions pose specific challenges to conventional pacing. Therefore, leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation may be the preferred strategy when permanent pacing is required after tricuspid valve intervention.

PURPOSE

To report periprocedural outcomes and follow-up of patients undergoing implantation of a LP system following tricuspid valve interventions.

METHODS

Patients with previous tricuspid valve intervention at the time of attempted implantation of a LP (MicraTM, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) were included.

RESULTS

Between 2019 and 2022, 40 patients underwent LP implantations following tricuspid interventions in 5 large tertiary centers. The mean age was 68.9 ± 13.7 years, and 48% patients were male. The indication for pacing was as following: AVB in 27 (68%) patients, AF with slow ventricular response in 10 (25%) patients, and refractory rapid atrial fibrillation (AF) referred to AV junction ablation in 3 (7%) patients. Most of the patients received Micra VR (78%). The procedure was successful in all patients. The mean procedural time is 58 ± 32 min, and the median fluoroscopy time is 7.5 min. Electrical parameters were within normal range (threshold: 1.35 ± 1.2 V@0.24 ms, impedance: 772 ± 245 Ohm, R-wave: 6.9 ± 5.4 mV). No acute complications were observed. During a mean follow-up of 10 months, electrical parameters remained stable, and 4 deaths were occurred (not related to the procedure).

CONCLUSION

A LP is a safe and efficient option following tricuspid valve interventions.

Pacing and Defibrillation Consideration in the Era of Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Tricuspid regurgitation is a commonly encountered valvular pathology in patients with trans-tricuspid pacing or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions are increasingly performed in patients at high surgical risk. Implantation of these valves can lead to the "jailing" of a trans-tricuspid lead. This practice carries both short- and long-term risks of lead failure and subsequent infection without the ability to perform traditional transvenous lead extraction. Herein, this manuscript reviews available therapeutic options for lead management in patients undergoing transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

The decision to jail a lead may be appropriate in certain high-risk cases, though extraction may be a better option in most cases given the variety of options for re-implant, including leadless pacemakers, valve-sparing systems, epicardial leads, leads placed directly through prosthetic valves, and the completely subcutaneous implantable-defibrillator. A growing number of patients meet the requirement for CIED implantation in the United States. A significant proportion of these patients will have tricuspid valve dysfunction, either related to or independent of their transvenous lead. As with any percutaneous intervention that has shown efficacy, the role of TTVI is also likely to increase as this therapy advances beyond the investigational phase. As such, the role of the heart team in the management of these patients will be increasingly critical in the years to come, and in those patients that have pre-existing CIED leads, we advocate for the involvement of an electrophysiologist in the heart team.

Bifocal coronary sinus pacing and transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation: an innovative combined approach

One of the most common complications of tricuspid valve replacement is atrioventricular block (AVB), often requiring permanent pacing. The endocardial pacemaker lead, placed in the right ventricle, may sometimes interfere with the implanted prosthesis, causing its early dysfunction and the need for alternative sites of pacing. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first case of a successful combined percutaneous procedure consisting of the implantation of two leads in the coronary sinus for univentricular bifocal pacing and a transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation in a young patient with severe dysfunction of the tricuspid bioprosthesis, requiring permanent pacing for a postsurgical complete atrioventricular block.

Incidence and Prognostic Implications of Cardiac-Implantable Device-Associated Tricuspid Regurgitation: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis

New-onset or worsening tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a well-established complication encountered after cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, there are limited and conflicting data on the true incidence and prognostic implications of this complication. This study aimed to bridge this current gap in the literature. Electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to March 2023, for studies reporting the incidence and/or prognosis of CIED-associated new or worsening TR. Potentially eligible studies were screened and selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effect model meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed, and I-squared statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. A total of 52 eligible studies, with 130,759 patients were included in the final quantitative analysis with a mean follow-up period of 25.5 months. The mean age across included studies was 69.35 years, and women constituted 46.6% of the study population. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 50.15%. The incidence of CIED-associated TR was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20% to 28%, p <0.001) with an odds ratio of 2.44 (95% CI 1.58 to 3.77, p <0.001). CIED-associated TR was independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.52, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.69, p <0.001), heart failure (HF) hospitalizations (aHR 1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.78, p = 0.006), and the composite of mortality and HF hospitalizations (aHR 1.96, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.87, p = 0.001) in the follow-up period. In conclusion, CIED-associated TR occurred in nearly one-fourth of patients after device implantation and was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations.

Lead management in patients undergoing percutaneous tricuspid valve replacement or repair: a 'heart team' approach

Clinically significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has historically been managed with either medical therapy or surgical interventions. More recently, percutaneous trans-catheter tricuspid valve (TV) replacement and tricuspid trans-catheter edge-to-edge repair have emerged as alternative treatment modalities. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have an increased incidence of TR. Severe TR in this population can occur for multiple reasons but most often results from the interactions between the CIED lead and the TV apparatus. Management decisions in patients with CIED leads and clinically significant TR, who are undergoing evaluation for a percutaneous TV intervention, need careful consideration as a trans-venous lead extraction (TLE) may both worsen and improve TR severity. Furthermore, given the potential risks of 'jailing' a CIED lead at the time of a percutaneous TV intervention (lead fracture and risk of subsequent infections), consideration should be given to performing a TLE prior to a percutaneous TV intervention. The purpose of this 'state-of-the-art' review is to provide an overview of the causes of TR in patients with CIEDs, discuss the available therapeutic options for patients with TR and CIED leads, and advocate for including a lead management specialist as a member of the 'heart team' when making treatment decisions in patients TR and CIED leads.

Tricuspid valve replacement: The old and the new

Tricuspid regurgitation is a frequent and serious condition but tricuspid valve (TV) surgery, that may be a valve replacement when a repair is not feasible, is rarely performed. Recent development of transcatheter TV interventions offers new options for those high-surgical risk patients, especially TV replacement for patients who are not eligible for transcatheter TV repair. In this review, we describe indications and outcome after surgical TV replacement, and devices available or in development for transcatheter TV replacement.

Tine-Based Leadless Pacemaker: Strategies for Safe Implantation in Unconventional Clinical Scenarios

Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have emerged as a meaningful alternative to transvenous pacemakers for single-ventricular pacing. LPs eliminate many of lead- and pocket-associated complications observed with transvenous pacemakers. Owing to the lack of atrioventricular synchronous pacing until recently, the use of LP was generally reserved for those patients who either required minimal ventricular pacing or had permanent atrial fibrillation. The only commercially available LP is the Micra transcatheter pacing system (Micra-TPS, Medtronic Inc. Fridley, Minnesota), which requires insertion of a 27-F (outer diameter) introducer sheath in the femoral vein. The LP is delivered to the right ventricle using a 23-F delivery catheter. Owing to the need for a large-bore sheath, the pivotal studies for the Micra transcatheter pacing system excluded patients with indwelling inferior vena cava filters and included only a few patients with bioprosthetic or repaired tricuspid valve. Subsequent real-world experience has demonstrated the overall safety and feasibility of LP placement, and use in various unconventional clinical settings has been validated, albeit with specific precautions. Additionally, incorporation of adjunctive techniques and strategies can improve the safety of the procedure in routine clinical settings as well. The objective of this state-of-the-art review is to highlight the key procedural elements to facilitate safe and efficient implantation of LP in routine as well as in unique clinical settings.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Prognosis of Tricuspid Regurgitation After Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This study aimed to determine the pooled incidence, risk factors, and clinical prognosis of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) deterioration after implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). The study was designed as a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Patients with indications for CIEDs were selected as participants and CIED implantation was the intervention. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and China Science and Technology Journal Database were searched systematically to identify studies. Thirty-seven studies with 8,144 patients were included. The pooled incidence of TR deterioration of at least one grade was 25.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.9-29.3; Z = 11.60; p < 0.01; I² = 94.8%, p < 0.01). Compared with TR incidence after permanent pacemaker implantation, that after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation did not significantly increase (22.68% v 29.18%; odds ratio [OR], 0.615; 95% CI, 0.271-1.339; Z =1.16; p = 0.246). The pooled incidence of TR deterioration of at least two grades was 9.4% (95% CI, 6.6-12.1; Z = 6.72; p < 0.01; I² = 86.0%, p < 0.01). Lead interference (OR, 8.704; 95% CI,4.450-17.028; Z= 6.32; p < 0.001) and pacemaker implantation time (OR, 1.153; 95% CI, 1.082-1.229; Z = 4.37; p < 0.001) were risk factors for worsening TR. Baseline atrial fibrillation, age, baseline mild TR, and left ventricular ejection fraction were not associated with TR. All-cause mortality (>one year after pacemaker implantation) was higher in patients with TR deterioration (hazard ratio, 1.598; 95% CI, 1.275-2.002; Z = 4.07; p < 0.01; I² = 0%). TR is a common complication after CIED implantation. Lead interference and pacemaker implantation time were risk factors for TR worsening. Compared with patients without TR deterioration after pacemaker implantation, patients with TR deterioration had a poorer prognosis.

Biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device placement in patients with hostile tricuspid valve anatomy: two case reports and review of the literature

AIMS

Right ventricular (RV) lead placement can be contraindicated in patients after tricuspid valve (TV) surgery. Placement of the implantable cardiac-defibrillator (ICD) lead in the middle cardiac vein (MCV) can be a viable option in these patients who have an indication for biventricular (BiV) ICD. We aim to describe the case of two patients with MCV lead placement and provide a comprehensive review of patients with complex TV pathology and indications for RV lead placement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We describe the cases of two patients with TV pathology unsuitable for the standard transvenous or surgical RV lead placement and undergoing BiV ICD implantation. Their characteristics, procedure, and outcomes are summarized. The BiV ICD was successfully placed with the RV lead positioned in the MCV in both patients. The procedures had no complications and were well-tolerated. On follow-up, both patients had appropriate tachytherapy with no readmissions for heart failure or worsening of cardiac function.

CONCLUSION

Right ventricular lead placement of BiV ICD in the MCV can be an excellent alternative in patients with significant TV pathology and poor surgical candidacy.

Examining the forgotten valve: outcomes of tricuspid valve surgery, a 15-year experience

BACKGROUND

We have entered an era of renewed interest in novel approaches to surgical intervention and minimally invasive and transcatheter technique. With an aging population, isolated tricuspid valve regurgitation incidence is rising; however, referral for surgical intervention remains low.

AIMS

We undertook this retrospective review to assess outcomes and challenges associated with tricuspid valve intervention.

METHODS

A comprehensive retrospective review of all patients undergoing tricuspid valve intervention in our institution between 2004 and 2018 was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 259 patients who underwent a tricuspid intervention between 2004 and 2018 were identified. Of those, 229 underwent a repair and 30 underwent a replacement. Median survival for repair was 3124 days, and replacement was 2294 days. In-patient mortality was 12% for those undergoing repair and 7% for the replacement patients. Of those undergoing redo tricuspid valve intervention, eight patients (61.5%) were alive at most recent follow-up. Eight patients required intraoperative pacemakers, 2 required postoperative pacemakers. Of those who had intraoperative epicardial pacing systems placed, 5 of the 8 remained pacing dependent on most recent follow up.

CONCLUSION

Beyond technical challenges, decision making regarding pacemaker requirement requires further exploration. Redo tricuspid valve surgery carries a significant mortality risk and consideration should be given to earlier intervention in this context.

Leadless pacemaker through tricuspid bioprosthetic valve: Early experience

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemaker (LP) therapy has been proved effective in cases where traditional transvenous right pacing (TRP) failed. TRP through a bioprosthetic tricuspid valve (BTV) has always been considered an unpreferable solution because of possible deleterious effect of permanent pacing leads on BTV function and specifically on tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Very limited data exist about the feasibility and safety of LP implantation in this setting.

METHODS

We describe two cases of LP implantation through BTV in patients with failure of epicardial pacemaker implanted after cardiac surgery. The focus is on technical description of the procedure and on electrical and echocardiographic evaluation at implantation and at the follow-up.

RESULTS

In both cases, skilled and careful handling of the delivery system as well as proper use of X-ray oblique views was determinant for atraumatic successful valve crossing. Likewise, an accurate selection of the deployment site inside the right ventricle, far enough from the valve to avoid valvular dysfunction, was important for successful implantation. Electrical parameters of LP were satisfying at implantation and at the follow-up. The echocardiogram after implantation and at the follow-up showed no mechanical interference of LP with prosthetic valve, no significant TR, and absence of significant changes in the biventricular function.

CONCLUSION

Our data seem to support feasibility and safety of this type of procedure in skilled hands, allowing efficacious pacing without valvular dysfunction or right ventricular (RV) physiology impairment.

A hybrid endocardial-epicardial biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to circumvent the tricuspid valve

The development of pacing and defibrillator systems that do not involve hardware traversing the tricuspid annulus can be desirable in order to minimize lead-related complications such as tricuspid regurgitation. Occasionally, primary tricuspid valve pathology (ie, infectious endocarditis, nonbacterial thrombotic endocarditis, and carcinoid disease) or congenital heart disease prohibits use of transvenous leads and alternative strategies are required to provide pacing or defibrillation. We describe such a case in which a biventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillator was implanted using a hybrid system involving endocardial and epicardial components.

Performance of pacemaker leads in alternative lead positions after tricuspid valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Bradycardic arrhythmias requiring pacemaker (PM) implantation are still common in patients in need of tricuspid valve replacement (TVR). Leaving an existing PM lead in an extravalvular position may represent a helpful alternative in special situations like the implantation of a mechanical TV. This study aimed to examine the short- to mid-term outcome of paravalvular leads concerning lead survival and prosthesis dysfunction in patients after TVR.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study of patients with TVR and ventricular pacing was conducted. Patients from the database of the Leipzig Heart Center were included. Data of the paravalvular lead group (PVG) and coronary sinus lead group (CSG) were compared to a control group with conventional transvalvular leads (TVG).

RESULTS

Eighty patients with TVR and cardiac PM (TVG [n = 13], PVG [n = 40], and CSG [n = 27]) were included. The mean follow-up was 2.8 years. The rate of lead revisions (TVG 15.4%, PVG 2.5%, and CSG 7.5%) was lower in PVG but without significance (P = .286). The CSG demonstrated significantly higher pacing thresholds (1.4 V/0.8 ms) than TVG (0.5 V/0.4 ms), P = .004. However, the deterioration of threshold amplitudes during follow-up was similar in CSG (7.4%) and PVG (7.5%) compared with controls (7.7%). Function of TV prosthesis regarding development of stenosis or regurgitation showed a similarity between the groups (regurgitation PVG P = .692, CSG P = 1; stenosis PVG P = .586, CSG P = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Paravalvular positioning of PM leads seems to represent a reasonable alternative to the conventional transvalvular lead positioning concerning the lead and Tricuspid Valve prosthesis's function and durability in selected patients.

Single-site ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus in patients with tricuspid valve disease

Aims

To evaluate coronary sinus single-site (CSSS) left ventricular pacing in adult patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when traditional right ventricular lead implantation is not feasible or is contraindicated.

Methods and results

We performed a retrospective analysis of 23 patients with tricuspid valve surgery/disease who received a CSSS ventricular pacing lead to avoid crossing the tricuspid valve. Two matched control populations were obtained from patients receiving (i) conventional right ventricular single-site (RVSS) leads and (ii) coronary sinus leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CSCRT). Main outcomes of interest were lead stability, electrical lead parameters and change in LVEF during long-term follow-up. Successful CSSS pacing was accomplished in all 23 patients without any procedural complications. During the 5.3 ± 2.8-year follow-up 22/23 (95.7%) leads were functional with stable pacing and sensing parameters, and 1/23 (4.3%) was extracted for unrelated reasons. Compared to CSSS leads, the lead revision/abandonment was similar with RVSS leads (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 22.0), but was higher with CSCRT leads (HR 7.41, 95% CI 1.30, 139.0). There was no difference in change in LVEF between CSSS and RVSS groups (-2.4 ± 11.0 vs. 1.5 ± 12.8, P = 0.76), but LVEF improved in CSCRT group (11.2 ± 16.5%, P = 0.002). Fluoroscopy times were longer during implantation of CSSS compared to RVSS leads (25.6 ± 24.6 min vs. 12.3 ± 18.6 min, P = 0.049).

Conclusion

In patients with normal LVEF, single-site ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus is a feasible, safe and reliable alternative to right ventricular pacing.

Bioprosthetic tricuspid valve dysfunction in patients with transvalvular or epicardial pacing leads

BACKGROUND

Dysfunction of native tricuspid valves due to transvenous pacing leads is well described. Patients with bioprosthetic tricuspid valve (BTV) who need ventricular pacing are often advised epicardial lead placement to avoid potential damage to the BTV although there are no data to support this.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the frequency of BTV dysfunction in patients with permanent transvenous right ventricular pacemaker lead and compare it to patients with epicardial leads.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients with BTV with ventricular pacing lead was conducted. Demographics, lead, BTV, and echocardiographic data were collected. Frequency of BTV dysfunction (moderate or severe) regurgitation or stenosis was compared between epicardial and transvalvular lead groups.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients with BTV and ventricular pacing lead (20 transvalvular and 26 epicardial leads) were identified. Mean age was 46 years with the majority being female (85%) and with rheumatic heart disease (87%). Both groups were similar in age, sex, and indications for BTV. Mean echocardiographic follow-up was for 5.5 years (±4.1 years). BTV dysfunction was similar between the transvalvular group with six (30%) patients and the epicardial group with five (19.2%) patients. The incidence of BTV dysfunction was greater in patients in sinus rhythm compared to patients in atrial fibrillation (50% vs 10%, P  =  0.004).

CONCLUSION

Development of BTV dysfunction is similar in patients with transvalvular ventricular leads and epicardial leads. The incidence of BTV dysfunction was higher in patients with sinus rhythm compared to atrial fibrillation.

Severe tricuspid regurgitation due to interactions with right ventricular permanent pacemaker or defibrillator leads

Although thought to be a rare event, permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators with right ventricular intracardiac leads have the potential to induce tricuspid valve dysfunction. Adverse lead-valve interactions can take place through a variety of mechanisms including damage at the time of implantation, leaflet pinning, or long-term fibrosis encapsulating the leaflet tissue. Clinical manifestations can display a wide range of severity, as well as a highly variable time span between implantation and hemodynamic deterioration. This review aims to describe the potential pathophysiologic effects of intracardiac device leads on the tricuspid valve, with a focus on ideal diagnostic strategies and treatment options once lead-induced valvular dysfunction is suspected.

Left Ventricular Pacing through Coronary Sinus Is Feasible and Safe for Patients with Prior Tricuspid Valve Intervention

BACKGROUND

In the presence of tricuspid valve intervention, right ventricular lead implantation is associated with the potential risk of tricuspid valve malfunction leading to a tricuspid regurgitation. Few cases have been reported with successful left ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus (CS) after tricuspid valve replacement or repair. In this retrospective study, we present the long-term clinical outcomes of 17 patients who underwent CS lead implantation and left ventricular pacing.

METHODS

Seventeen consecutive patients referred to our institution with an indication of postprocedural pacemaker (PM) implantation after tricuspid valve intervention were retrospectively included in the study. The indication for device implantation in all patients was atrial fibrillation with a symptomatic pause ≥ 3.0 seconds. Thus, all devices implanted were ventricular rate responsive (VVIR).

RESULTS

All device implantations were successful and uncomplicated. Mean operation time was 60 ± 8 minutes. Mean fluoroscopy time was 8.3 ± 2.1 minutes. Mean R-wave sensing was 7.5 ± 2.0 mV with a mean slew rate of 2.2 V/s. A mean pacing threshold of 1.9 ± 0.3 V/0.4 ms was accepted as patients were not PM-dependent. The pacing impedance was 743.5 ± 109.71 Ohm. At 2-year follow-up, pacing sensing, threshold, and impedance values were unchanged and no lead dislodgement has been noted.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with tricuspid valve intervention, left ventricular pacing might be the treatment of choice for permanent ventricular pacing, with all the advantages of the endovenous route as a minimally invasive approach.