Minimally invasive implantation of the myopore sutureless myocardial pacing lead

A Novel Approach for Repetitive Dislocation of Transvenous Left Ventricular Leads During Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantation by the Loop Technique

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for heart failure requires transvenous insertion of a left ventricular pacing lead through the coronary sinus. However, repeated intraoperative dislocations often occur. Therefore, we describe a novel technique that uses the loop technique to treat patients with repeated intraoperative dislocations during transvenous left ventricular lead implantation to stabilize the lead in its final position. In five patients with repeated intraoperative dislocation during transvenous left ventricular lead implantation, the loop technique was successfully used to stabilize the lead in its final position. The pacing and sensing parameters were satisfactory in all patients at implantation and 12 months post-operatively. Compared with the pre-operative values, the 12-month post-operative values for the left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly increased and the left ventricular end systolic dimension and left ventricular end diastolic dimension were significantly decreased (P < 0.05). The left ventricular ejection fraction of these 5 patients increased by more than 15%. CRT significantly improved the left ventricular structure and function of these 5 patients. During the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, no left ventricular lead dislocations were observed. This loop technique is safe and effective and can be considered for repeated intraoperative dislocation during transvenous left ventricular lead implantation through the coronary sinus of a CRT device.

Thoracoscopic Implantation of Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

(1) Background: Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of epicardial left ventricular (LV) lead placement using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). (2) Methods: Acute and post-discharge outcomes of CRT were compared between patients with epicardial LV leads (Epicardial-LV group, n = 13) and those with endocardial LV leads (Endocardial-LV group, n = 243). (3) Results: Epicardial LV leads were implanted via VATS alone (n = 8) or along with mini-thoracotomy (n = 5), for failed endocardial implantation (n = 11) or recurrent lead dislodgement (n = 2). All epicardial procedures under general anesthesia with one-lung ventilation were successfully completed in 1.0 ± 0.4 h without phrenic nerve stimulation. LV pacing thresholds in the epicardial-LV (1.5 ± 1.0 V) and endocardial-LV (1.3 ± 0.8 V) were comparable (p = 0.651). All patients were discharged alive post-VATS 8.8 ± 3.9 days. During the follow-up (34.3 ± 28.6 months), all patients with epicardial LV leads stayed alive except for one cardiac death post-CRT 14 months and one heart transplantation post-CRT 30 months. All epicardial LV leads maintained stable performance without dislodgement/significant changes in pacing threshold/impedance. LV lead dislodgement occurred only in endocardial-LV (7/243, 2.9%). Efficacy in both groups was comparable in terms of QRS narrowing, increase in LV ejection fraction, and survival free of cardiac death, or heart-failure-related hospitalization. (4) Conclusions: Epicardial LV lead placement using VATS can be a safe and effective alternative to endocardial implantation, with comparable acute and post-discharge outcomes achieved by both approaches.