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

Distal His bundle pacing in a patient with surgically corrected complex Ebstein anomaly and symptomatic second-degree atrioventricular block: a case report

Background

Ebstein's anomaly occurs when there is an apical displacement of the tricuspid valve with septal and posterior valve leaflets tethering. This condition often occurs in association with other congenital, structural, or conduction system diseases, including intracardiac shunts, valvular lesions, arrhythmias, accessory conduction pathways, and first-degree atrioventricular (AV) block. We present for the first time a case of a patient with Ebstein's anomaly who presented with second-degree Mobitz II AV block and was successfully treated with conduction system pacing (CSP) due to her young age and the likelihood of a long-term high percentage of pacing.

Case summary

We present a case of a 42-year-old lady with a background of complex congenital heart disease, including severe pulmonary stenosis, Ebstein anomaly, and atrial septal defect (ASD). She required complex surgical intervention, including tricuspid valve (TV) repair and subsequently replacement, ASD closure, and pulmonary balloon valvuloplasty. She presented to our hospital with symptomatic second-degree Mobitz II AV block (dizziness, shortness of breath, and exercise intolerance) and right bundle branch block (RBBB) on her baseline ECG. Her echocardiogram showed dilated right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV) with low normal LV systolic function. Due to her young age and the likelihood of a long-term high percentage of RV pacing, we opted for CSP after a detailed discussion and patient consent. The distal HIS position is the preferred pacing strategy at our centre. We could not cross the TV with the standard Medtronic C315 HIS catheter, so we had to use the deflectable C304 HIS catheter. Mapping and pacing of the distal HIS bundle were achieved by Medtronic Selectsecure 3830, 69 cm lead. HIS bundle pacing led to the correction of both second-degree Mobitz II AV block and pre-existing RBBB. The implantation was uneventful, and the patient was discharged home the next day without any acute complications.

Discussion

Distal HIS pacing is feasible in patients with surgically treated complex Ebstein anomaly and heart block. This approach can normalize the QRS complex with a high probability of preserving or improving LV function.

Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Tricuspid Valve Surgery

Tricuspid valve (TV) surgery carries a high risk of atrioventricular block. In this report, we illustrate several options for managing conduction disorders after TV surgery. The choice of cardiac implantable devices must take account of several parameters such as surgical procedure, patient's rhythm and history, and etiology of TV disease. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Is It Possible to Place a Pacemaker Lead Through a Bileaflet Mechanical Prosthesis?

We present a 64-year-old woman who underwent mitral, aortic, and tricuspid valve (TV) replacement with mechanical prostheses. Two months after TV surgery, she presented third-degree atrioventricular block. After attempting to place a pacemaker lead through the coronary sinus, it was placed through the mechanical valve in the tricuspid position as the last option. At 1 year of follow-up, the device shows no signs of dysfunction, and the prosthesis has moderate regurgitation.

Injectable conductive hydrogel can reduce pacing threshold and enhance efficacy of cardiac pacemaker

Background: Pacemaker implantation is currently used in patients with symptomatic bradycardia. Since a pacemaker is a lifetime therapeutic device, its energy consumption contributes to battery exhaustion, along with its voltage stimulation resulting in local fibrosis and greater resistance, which are all detrimental to patients. The possible resolution for those clinical issues is an injection of a conductive hydrogel, poly-3-amino-4-methoxybenzoic acid-gelatin (PAMB-G), to reduce the myocardial threshold voltage for pacemaker stimulation. Methods: PAMB-G is synthesized by covalently linking PAMB to gelatin, and its conductivity is measured using two-point resistivity. Rat hearts are injected with gelatin or PAMB-G, and pacing threshold is evaluated using electrocardiogram and cardiac optical mapping. Results: PAMB-G conductivity is 13 times greater than in gelatin. The ex vivo model shows that PAMB-G significantly enhances cardiac tissue stimulation. Injection of PAMB-G into the stimulating electrode location at the myocardium has a 4 times greater reduction of pacing threshold voltage, compared with electrode-only or gelatin-injected tissues. Multi-electrode array mapping reveals that the cardiac conduction velocity of PAMB-G group is significantly faster than the non- or gelatin-injection groups. PAMB-G also reduces pacing threshold voltage in an adenosine-induced atrial-ventricular block rat model. Conclusion: PAMB-G hydrogel reduces cardiac pacing threshold voltage, which is able to enhance pacemaker efficacy.

Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a promising pacing modality for preventing pacing induced cardiomyopathy in patients complicated with conduction abnormalities (CAs) after prosthetic valve (PV) implantation.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LBBP in this patient population.

METHODS

LBBP was attempted in 20 patients complicated with atrioventricular block after PV implantation. Surface, intracardiac electrical measurements, and echocardiographic data were documented. Lead parameters and complications were routinely tracked at implantation and each follow-up visit.

RESULTS

LBBP was successful in 90% (18/20) participants. The paced QRS duration and the stimulus to left ventricular activation time were 106.8 ± 6.8 ms and 65.5 ± 5.4 ms, respectively. Left bundle branch (LBB) potential was recorded in 61.1% (11/18) patients who succeeded in LBBP. During the procedure, the mean unipolar myocardium capture threshold was 0.51 ± 0.15 V@0.4 ms while the unipolar bundle capture threshold was 0.84 ± 0.51 V@0.4 ms. The mean fluoroscopic exposure time and the radiation dose were 13.0 ± 9.2 min and 81.7 ± 8.3 mGy, respectively. The average follow-up period was 10.4 ± 5.9 months (range 3-23 months). Pacing parameters remained stable and no significant lead-related complications occurred during the whole observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP was safe and feasible in patients with PVs. Acceptable and stable pacing parameters could be expected during the procedure and the follow-ups.

MDCT of unique drainage of the anterior interventricular coronary vein into the left atrium: two case reports

Pre-procedural CT mapping of the coronary venous system is advised by the current guidelines before many interventional procedures. The published literature for variants of the coronary venous system is scarce. The variant of anterior interventricular vein (AIV) drainage into the left atrium is extremely rare. In this paper, we present multidetector CT findings of two cases of anomalous drainage of the anterior interventricular vein into the left atrium.

Left ventricular pacing in patients with preexisting tricuspid valve disease

BACKGROUND

Conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing is increasingly recognised to cause tricuspid valve (TV) injury or dysfunction, in part due to the need to pass the lead through the valve. This may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting TV disease or prior TV surgery. An alternative in this situation is to implant a left ventricular (LV) lead instead of ventricular pacing.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 26 patients with tricuspid valve surgery/disease who received a LV pacing lead in the coronary veins to avoid crossing the tricuspid valve, with or without a right atrial lead. A matched control population was obtained from patients receiving conventional right ventricular pacing and outcomes were compared. Main outcomes of interest were lead stability, electrical lead parameters and change in echocardiographic parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Successful left ventricular pacing was established in 25 out of the 26 cases with one case converted to a RV lead due to lead dislodgement. During the 2.96 ± 1.0 year follow-up, 24 of 25 (96.0%) leads were functional with stable pacing and sensing parameters, and 1 of 25 (4.0%) was extracted for due to device infection following an episode of thrombophlebitis.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that in patients with existing tricuspid valve disease or surgery, ventricular pacing via the coronary veins is a feasible, safe, and reliable alternative to right ventricular pacing.

Single- and dual-site ventricular pacing entirely through the coronary sinus for patients with prior tricuspid valve surgery

PURPOSE

Transvenous right ventricular pacing has traditionally been avoided after surgical tricuspid valve repair or replacement because of possible valvular dysfunction. Epicardial pacing has been used but it requires surgical thoracotomy and has higher lead failure rates when compared to transvenous pacing. We evaluated the lead stability and clinical outcomes in patients with isolated coronary sinus (CS) lead due to relative contraindication to transvenous pacing from prior tricuspid valve (TV) surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined a single-center cohort of 34 patients with TV disease and/or surgery who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation with a left ventricular CS lead as the only ventricular pacing lead (to avoid crossing the TV). The clinical outcome, echocardiographic data, and pacing thresholds were evaluated at follow-up.

RESULTS

We implanted 19 patients with a single-CS lead and 15 patients with dual-CS leads. The average left ventricular ejection fraction was 56 ± 13% prior to lead implantation and remained stable at 2-year follow-up. The tricuspid regurgitation remained mild at follow-up. The average lead pacing threshold was 1.2 ± 0.6 V × ms at implant and 1.1 ± 0.4 V × ms at 2-year follow-up (P = 0.39). For patients with dual-CS leads, the pacing threshold was 1.2 ± 0.7 V × ms at implant and 1.1 ± 0.5 V × ms at 2-year follow-up (P = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ventricular pacing entirely through the CS is an effective and minimally invasive method that provides stable pacing for patients with prior TV surgery in whom transvenous lead placement either is not possible or is relatively contraindicated.

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.

Case presentation: implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker via the coronary sinus in a patient with triple valve replacement

Background

In patients with triple valve replacement developing third-degree atrioventricular block (AVB), the most appropriate approach for permanent pacemaker implantation remains questionable.

Case presentation

In this case presentation, we first described the approach of implantation of the cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P) via one bipolar pacing lead in middle cardiac vein (MCV) and one quadripolar pacing lead in anterior interventricular vein (AIV) in a patient developing complete AVB, who had been previously diagnosed with rheumatic valvular heart disease with triple valve replaced. After the CRT-P implantation, the two pacing leads in coronary sinus (CS) provided a dual-site ventricular pacing from the anterior septum and posterior septum, which resulted in a narrow QRS complex and an increased ventricular synchrony. During the long-term follow-up, no deterioration of heart function was documented and pacing parameters remained good.

Conclusion

In this patient developing complete AVB with triple valve replaced, our approach of CRT-P implantation provides an effective and reliable ventricular pacing, and is an alternative option when transvenous right ventricular pacing, transseptal left ventricular pacing and transpericardial epicardium pacing are not possible. Further prospective randomized trials are required to confirm the efficiency of our approach of dual-site ventricular pacing by CRT-P in this kind patients.

Clinical investigation of left ventricular pacing using coronary sinus in patients with mechanical prosthetic tricuspid valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Although transvenous right ventricular (RV) endocardial lead placement is routine practice in clinical pacing, RV inaccessibility in certain clinical situations mandates the search for other sites.

HYPOTHESIS

This study is aimed to verify whether left ventricular lead through coronary sinus is safe and efficient.

METHODS

Based on a retrospective analysis of a single-center series of 4 patients with inaccessibility for RV pacing, we report on the feasibility and reliability of coronary sinus (CS) pacing via left ventricular (LV) lead, which usually is used in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Four patients with valvular heart disease and bradycardias post-mechanical prosthetic tricuspid valve replacement were studied. The LV leads were implanted into the lateral vein or great cardiac vein of the CS, and all parameters were programmed postprocedure.

RESULTS

In all cases procedures yielded favorable parameters, with 1 CS dissection. At long-term follow-up, there was no threshold increase or lead dislocation.

CONCLUSIONS

LV lead implantation through the CS appears safe and efficacious in patients with inaccessibility for RV pacing.

RIght VErsus Left Apical transvenous pacing for bradycardia: Results of the RIVELA randomized study

Aims

To compare cardiac function when pacing from the right or left ventricular apex in patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function, at 1-year follow-up.

Methods

Prospective, multicentre centre randomizing conventional right ventricular apical (RVA) versus left ventricular apical (LVA) pacing using a coronary sinus lead in patients requiring ventricular pacing for bradycardia. Follow-up was performed using 3D-echocardiography at 6 and 12 months.

Results

A total of 36 patients (age 75.4 ± 8.7 years, 21 males) were enrolled (17 patients in the RVA group and 19 patients in the LVA group). A right ventricular lead was implanted in 8 patients in the LVA group, mainly because of high capture thresholds. There were no differences in the primary endpoint of LVEF at 1 year (60.4 ± 7.1% vs 62.1 ± 7.2% for the RVA and LVA groups respectively, P = 0.26) nor in any of the secondary endpoints (left ventricular dimensions, left ventricular diastolic function, right ventricular systolic function and tricuspid/mitral insufficiency). LVEF did not change significantly over follow-up in either group. Capture thresholds were significantly higher in the LVA group, and two patients had unexpected loss of capture of the coronary sinus lead during follow-up.

Conclusions

Left univentricular pacing seems to be comparable to conventional RVA pacing in terms of ventricular function at up to 1 year follow-up, and is an option to consider in selected patients (e.g. those with a tricuspid valve prosthesis).

Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve-In-Ring and Aortic Valve-In-Valve Implantation

Background  Transcatheter heart valve (THV) therapies have shown to be an alternative to surgical valve replacement, especially in high-risk patients requiring redo surgery. However, reports of transcatheter-based interventions in tricuspid valve position are scarce.

Case Description  Here, we report a case of successful concomitant transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) and tricuspid valve-in-ring (ViR) procedures using a 23-mm CoreValve Evolut R THV (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) in aortic position and a 29-mm SAPIEN3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, California, United States) THV in tricuspid position.

Conclusion  This case demonstrates feasibility of concomitant transcatheter aortic ViV and tricuspid ViR procedures.