Friedman DJ, Qin L, Freeman JV, Singh JP, Curtis JP, Piccini JP, Al-Khatib SM, Jackson KP. Left ventricular lead implantation failure in an unselected nationwide cohort.
Heart Rhythm 2023;
20:1420-1428. [PMID:
37406870 DOI:
10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.06.023]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2023] [Revised: 06/26/2023] [Accepted: 06/29/2023] [Indexed: 07/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse