A long-term, prospective, cohort study on the performance of right ventricular pacing leads: comparison of active-fixation with passive-fixation leads

Association between triglyceride-glucose index and the risk of heart failure hospitalization in older diabetic patients received right ventricular pacing: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The prognostic value of triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index is not yet known for older diabetic patients received right ventricular pacing (RVP). We aimed to investigate the association between TyG index and the risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) in older diabetic patients received RVP.

METHODS

This study was conducted between January 2017 and January 2018 at Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, China, and included older (age ≥ 65 years) diabetic patients that received RVP for the first time. TyG index were obtained before implantation. The primary endpoint was HFH.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients were divided into three groups according to the tertiles of TyG index: < 8.5 (T1, N = 77), 8.5-9.1 (T2, N = 77), and > 9.1 (T3, N = 77). T3 group had higher rate of HFH (Log-rank = 11.7, P = 0.003). Multivariate analyses showed that, TyG index served as an independent predictor for HFH, both as numerical variable (HR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.21-3.11, P = 0.006), and as categorical variable (HR = 2.31, 95% CI 1.09-4.89, P = 0.03). RCS demonstrated that the risk of HFH was relatively low until TyG index exceeded 8.8, beyond which the risk began to increase rapidly (P-non-linear = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Preimplantation TyG index emerges as a robust, independent predictor for HFH in older diabetic patients received RVP, and TyG index > 8.8 might be the optimal cut-off value.

Impact of fixation mechanism and helix retraction status on right ventricular lead extraction

Background

The impact of lead fixation mechanism on extractability is poorly characterized.

Objective

We aimed to compare the technical difficulty of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of active vs passive fixation right ventricular (RV) leads.

Methods

A total of 408 patients who underwent RV TLE by a single expert electrophysiologist at Oregon Health & Science University between October 2011 and June 2022 were identified and retrospectively analyzed; 331 (81%) had active fixation RV leads and 77 (19%) had passive fixation RV leads. The active fixation cohort was further stratified into those with successfully retracted helices (n = 181) and failed helix retraction (n = 109). A numerical system (0-9) devised using 6 procedural criteria quantified a technical extraction score (TES) for each RV TLE. The TES was compared between groups.

Results

Helix retraction was successful in ≥55% of active fixation TLEs. The mean TES for active-helix retracted, active-helix non-retracted, and passive fixation groups was 1.8, 3.5, and 3.7, respectively. The TES of the active-helix retracted group was significantly lower than those of the active-helix non-retracted group (adjusted P < .01) and the passive fixation group (adjusted P < .01). There was no significant difference in TES between the passive fixation and active-helix non-retracted groups in multivariate analysis (P = .18). The TLE success rate of the entire cohort was >97%, with a major complication rate of 0.5%.

Conclusion

TLE of active fixation leads where helical retraction is achieved presents fewer technical challenges than does passive fixation RV lead extraction; however, if the helix cannot be retracted, active and passive TLE procedures present similar technical challenges.

Avoiding implant complications in cardiac implantable electronic devices: what works?

Nearly one in ten patients experience complications in relation to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations. CIED complications have serious implications for the patients and for the healthcare system. In light of the rising rates of new implants and consistent rate of complications, primary prevention remains a major concern. To guide future efforts, we sought to review the evidence base underlying common preventive actions made during a primary CIED implantation.

Effects of long-term right ventricular apex pacing on left ventricular dyssynchrony, morphology and systolic function

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular apex (RVA) is still the most common implanted site in the world. There are a large number of RVA pacing population who have been carrying dual-chamber permanent pacemaker (PPM) over decades. Comparison of left ventricular dyssynchrony, morphology and systolic function between RVA pacing population and healthy population is unknown.

METHOD

This case-control study enrolled 61 patients suffered from complete atrioventricular block (III°AVB) for replacement of dual-chamber PPM. Then, 61 healthy controls matched with PPM patients in gender, age, follow-up duration and complications were included. The lead impedance, pacing threshold and sensing were compared between at implantation and long-term follow-up. Left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony, morphology and systolic function were compared between RVA pacing population (RVA group) and healthy population (healthy group) at implantation (baseline) and follow-up. And clarify the predictors of LV systolic function in RVA group at follow-up.

RESULTS

After 112.44 ± 34.94 months of follow-up, comparing with parameters at implantation, atrial lead impedance decreased significantly (690 ± 2397 Ω vs 613 ± 2257 Ω， p = 0.048); atrial pacing threshold has a increased trend and P-wave amplitude has a decreased trend, but there was no statistical differences; while, RVA ventricular lead threshold increased significantly (0.50 ± 0.23 V vs 0.91 ± 0.47 V， p < 0.001), impedance (902 ± 397 Ω vs 680 ± 257 Ω，p < 0.001) and R-wave amplitude (11.71 ± 9.40mv vs 7.00 ± 6.91 mv， p < 0.001) decreased significantly. Compared with healthy group, long-term RVA pacing significantly increased ventricular dyssynchrony (mean QRS duration, 156.21 ± 29.80 ms vs 97.08 ± 15.70 ms， p < 0.001), left atrium diameter (LAD, 40.61 ± 6.15 mm vs 37.49 ± 4.80 mm，p = 0.002), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD, 49.15 ± 5.93 mm vs 46.41 ± 3.80 mm，p = 0.003), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVMI, 121.86 ± 41.52 g/m2 vs 98.41 ± 25.29 g/m2，p < 0.001), significantly deteriorated degree of tricuspid regurgitation (p < 0.001), and significantly decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, 61.38 ± 8.10% vs 64.64 ± 5.85%, p = 0.012), but after long-term RVA pacing, the mean LVEF was still more than 50%. Long-term RVA group LVEF was negatively correlated with preimplantation LVMI (B = -0.055，t = -2.244，p = 0.029), LVMI at follow-up (B = -0.081，t = -3.864，p = 0.000) and tricuspid regurgitation at follow-up (B = -3.797，t = -3.599，p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, although long-term RVA pacing has significantly effects on left ventricular dyssynchrony, morphology and systolic function in III°AVB patients, the mean LVEF is still >50%. High preimplantation LVMI can predict the decline of LVEF.

Lead choice in cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing)

Background: Few data are available regarding lead preferences of electrophysiologists during cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantation. Aim of this survey is to evaluate the leads used, and the reasons behind these choices, in a large population of implanters. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all 314 Italian centers with experience in CIED implantation. Results: 103 operators from 100 centers (32% of centers) responded. For atrium, passive leads represented first choice for pacemakers and defibrillators (71% and 64% of physicians, respectively), mainly for safety. For right ventricle, active fixation was preferred (61% and 93% operators in pacemaker and defibrillator patients), for higher versatility in positioning and lower dislodgement risk. For left ventricular stimulation, quadripolar leads were preferred by more than 80% of respondents, for better phrenic nerve and myocardial threshold management; active-fixation leads represent a second choice, in order to prevent or manage dislodgement (78% and 17% of respondents, respectively), but 44% of operators considered them dangerous. Conclusions: The choice of leads is heterogeneous. Trends are toward active-fixation right ventricular leads and passive-fixation atrial leads (particularly in pacemaker patients, considered frailer). For left ventricular stimulation, operators' majority want to disposition all kind of leads, although quadripolar leads are the favorites.

A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of active versus passive atrial lead fixation in Chinese patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices: a long term, retrospective, observational, single-center study

BACKGROUND

Data comparing active atrial lead fixation with passive atrial lead fixation in Chinese patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) for atrial pacing is limited. Our study evaluated the effectiveness of active fixation versus passive fixation of atrial leads by observing the lead performance parameters.

METHODS

This retrospective, long-term, single-center study included a cohort of Chinese patients who underwent CIED implantation at the Department of Cardiology of People's Hospital of Yuxi City, China, from 1 March 2010 to 1 March 2015. Efficacy was determined by comparing implantation time, threshold values, incidence of lead dislocation/failure, and lead-related complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 1217 patients, active and passive atrial lead fixation were performed in 530 (mean age, 69.37 ± 11.44 years) and 497 (mean age, 68.33 ± 10.96 years). The active fixation group reported significantly lower mean atrial implantation times (P = .0001) and threshold values (P = .044) compared with the passive atrial lead fixation group. In addition, threshold values in the active atrial lead fixation group were stable throughout the observation period. No instances of myocardial perforation, cardiac tamponade, implantation failure, or electrode dislocation/re-fixation were reported in the active atrial lead fixation group. A favorable decrease in patient comfort parameters such as bed rest time (P = .027) and duration of hospital stay (P = .038) were also observed in the active lead fixation group.

CONCLUSION

Active atrial lead fixation demonstrated greater stability, steady long-term thresholds and minimal lead-related complications compared to passive lead fixation in Chinese patients with CIEDs.