Clinical experience of contrast venography guided axillary vein puncture in biventricular pacing R1

Triple lead cephalic versus subclavian vein approach in cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation is associated with severe complications including pneumo- and hemothorax. Data on a sole cephalic vein approach (sCV), potentially preventing these complications, are limited. The aim of our study was to compare a sole cSV with a subclavian vein approach (SV) in CRT implantations with respect to feasibility and safety. We performed a prospective cohort study enrolling twenty-four consecutive de-novo CRT implantations (group A) using a sCV at two centers. Fifty-four age-matched CRT patients implanted via the SV served (group B) as reference. Procedural success rate and complications were recorded during a follow-up of 4 weeks. All CRTs could be implanted in group A, with 91.7% using cephalic access alone. In group B, CRT implantation was successfully performed in 96.3%. Procedure and fluoroscopy duration were similar for both groups (sCV vs. SV: 119 ± 45 vs. 106 ± 31 minutes, 17 ± 9 vs 14 ± 9 minutes). Radiation dosage was higher in sCV group vs. SV (2984 ± 2370 vs. 1580 ± 1316 cGy*cm²; p = 0.001). There was no case of a pneumothorax in group of sCV, while two cases were observed using SV. Overall complication rate was similar (sCV: 13.0% vs. SV: 12.5%). de-novo CRT implantation using a triple cephalic vein approach is feasible. Procedure duration and complication rates were similar, while radiation dosage was higher in the sCV compared to the SV approach. Despite its feasibility in the clinical routine, controlled prospective studies with longer follow-up are required to elucidate a potential benefit with respect to lead longevity.

Utility of a novel pacing guidewire in pre-implantation testing at different left ventricular sites in cardiac resynchronization therapy procedures

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a novel pacing guidewire in pre-implantation testing of different left ventricular (LV) sites during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) procedures.

METHODS

Ten consecutive patients (8 male, mean age 65.8 ± 4.9) undergoing CRT procedures were studied. Pacing threshold and R-wave sensing measured by the guidewire and LV lead at different LV sites were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty sites (6 apical, 13 middle, and 11 basal; 15 lateral and 15 anterior) were tested. There was significant correlation between pacing threshold (r = 0.878, p < 0.0001), and R-wave sensing (r = 0.896, p < 0.0001) obtained by guidewire and those obtained by LV lead. Separating into lateral and anterior sites, significant correlation was also found in pacing threshold (lateral r = 0.658, p = 0.008; anterior r = 0.886, p < 0.0001) and R-wave sensing (lateral r = 0.887, p < 0.0001; anterior 0.865, p < 0.0001). For basal and middle sites, significant correlation was found in pacing threshold (basal r = 0.890, p < 0.0001; middle r = 0.878, p < 0.0001), and R-wave sensing (basal r = 0.930, p < 0.0001; middle r = 0.823, p < 0.001). No and borderline correlation was found in pacing threshold (r = 0.548, p = 0.26) and R-wave sensing (r = 0.835, p = 0.039), respectively, for apical sites. Concordance rate for the presence of phrenic nerve stimulation at high pacing output was 87%.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of the novel pacing guidewire in pre-implantation testing in CRT procedures is site-dependent. There was good correlation with LV lead in the measurement of pacing threshold and R-wave sensing at basal and middle sites, but not apical sites. Presence of phrenic nerve stimulation can be predicted by guidewire testing with high accuracy.