Right ventricular perforation by screw-in lead after permanent pacemaker implantation: a case report

A 93-year-old man received a permanent implanted pacemaker(VVI mode) to treat completed atrioventricular block in our hospital. However, pacing failure appeared 4 days later. Computed tomography showed right ventricular perforation by the screw-in lead. There was no evidence of cardiac tamponade or symptoms, so we inserted another lead into the right ventricular outflow tract without removing the first lead. This patient still has the pacing lead that perforated the right ventricle, so careful observation will be needed even after discharge.     

Adverse events with transvenous left ventricular pacing in patients with severe heart failure: early experience from a single centre.

AIMS: Assessment of complications following implantation of transvenous ventricular electrodes to pace the left ventricle. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients with severe cardiac failure and left bundle branch block were prospectively followed for adverse effects of implantation of a left ventricular transvenous pacing system. Immediate follow-up was associated with loss of left ventricular pacing in nine patients (32%). This was due to lead dislodgement in four cases (corrected by re-operation in three of these cases), and due to increased threshold in five cases (corrected by programming a higher pacing amplitude in all five cases, but with intermittent diaphragmatic contraction in one case). After 1 month, one patient died, one patient with severe coronary heart disease suffered a myocardial infarction, and left ventricular pacing was lost in two patients. Pericardial effusion, new significant ventricular arrhythmias or other adverse effects were not observed. After a mean follow-up of 16 +/- 9.2 months, pacing leads remained stable and no late complications related to the transvenous left ventricular epicardial pacing were observed. CONCLUSION: Placement of a permanent lead in a tributary of the coronary sinus is feasible without serious adverse effects during the first month. The only frequent adverse event was lead dislodgement; a finding which emphasizes the need for development of specially designed leads for this application.     

An electrocardiographic algorithm for determining the location of pacemaker electrode in patients with right bundle branch block configuration during permanent ventricular pacing

The expected morphology of right ventricular pacing is a left bundle branch block (LBBB) pattern. However, right bundle branch block (RBBB) can also be seen during permanent right ventricular pacing. The aim of this study was to develop an electrocardiographic algorithm to differentiate this benign condition from septal and free wall perforation with subsequent left ventricular pacing. Three hundred consecutive patients who had permanent ventricular or dual-chamber pacemaker implantation between 1999 and 2000 were screened and 25 patients (8.3%) who exhibited RBBB configuration were included in the study. Echocardiograms and chest radiographs were evaluated in order to identify the pacing lead location in this group. The authors formed a study group with their own 25 patients and 22 cases of RBBB with permanent pacemaker from previous publications (total 47 patients). Frontal axis, QRS morphology in lead V(1), and the precordial transition point, which is defined as the precordial lead where R wave amplitude is equal to S wave amplitude, were examined. Placement of precordial leads V(1) and V(2) 1 interspace lower than the standard location (Klein maneuver) eliminated the RBBB pattern in 12 patients. RBBB pattern with "true right ventricular pacing" was detected in 24 of the 25 patients, and in 11 of the 22 patients reported in the literature (total 35 patients). Right ventricular pacing was correctly identified in 34 of 35 patients with use of criteria including left superior axis deviation, RS or qR morphology in lead V(1), and precordial transition at lead V(3) with a high sensitivity and specificity. A simple surface electrocardiogram can accurately predict the lead location in patients having RBBB morphology with right ventricular pacing.     

Tracking an unusually migrated pacing lead

A rare and fatal complication was encountered during a forensic deliberation. The case focused on a delayed pacing lead migration with multiple organ perforation and a trajectory crossing the right ventricular wall, pericardium, left inferior lung lobe, diaphragm, abdominal cavity to the left retroperitoneum, with the end of the pacing lead stopping close between the left psoas muscle and the left kidney. The above path—identified as the source of fatal bleeding—was found during revision surgery when the lead was removed. The bleeding was made easier by inhibiting platelet function and by a temporary decrease in platelet count as a result of low molecular weight heparin. No symptoms related to the above passage of the lead through the patient´s body were noted.     

Technical failure to perform cardiac resynchronization therapy: use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging techniques to clarify a left-sided superior vena cava and coronary sinus morphology

The most common reason for failure to implant a left ventricular lead to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy is the presence of unfavourable coronary venous anatomy. The present report illustrates the use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to delineate the anatomy of a left-sided superior vena cava in two patients in whom permanent cardiac pacing was unattainable.     

Permanent Pacing from a Left Ventricular Vein in a Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava and Absent Right Superior Vena Cava: Use of an Over-the-Wire System

In patients with a persistent left superior vena cava, placement of a permanent transvenous pacing lead for ventricular pacing via the left subclavian vein can be technically challenging. Permanent pacing was achieved in a patient with a persistent left superior vena cava and absent right superior vena cava using a left ventricular vein. Use of an over-the-wire lead system greatly facilitated this procedure.     

Dual-site right ventricular and left ventricular pacing in a patient with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and atrial fibrillation using a standard CRT-D device

In patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) accompanied by permanent atrial fibrillation (AF), generally, the unused atrial port is plugged at device implantation. We describe an alternative use for the atrial-port in this case report.A 43 year old gentleman with LVSD due to left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) and AF of unknown duration underwent a CRT-D implantation after optimization of cardiac failure treatment. The atrial-port which would otherwise have been plugged was connected to a high right ventricular septal (RVS) pacing-lead and the shock-lead was positioned at the right ventricular apex (RVA). This approach permitted modified cardiac resynchronization in a high RVS to left ventricular (LV) and RVA pacing sequence using the high RVS and LV pacing combined with a shock vector including the RV apex. A standard CRT-D device with a minimum programmable A–V delay of 30 ms (technically RVS to LV delay in the ‘DDD’ pacing mode) was used. The device was programmed to a ‘DDD’ pacing mode (sequential multi-site ventricular pacing with some programmability). The mode switch operation was programmed ‘OFF’ since atrial sensing is unavailable. Device-delivered shocks did not cardiovert the patient back to sinus rhythm suggesting that the AF was permanent (no prior cardioversion attempts were made on the presumption that the chances of maintaining sinus rhythm, given the underlying cardiac condition, were low). Subsequently, the patient required radio-frequency ablation of the atrio-ventricular node for conducted AF. Symptomatic, echocardiographic and radiological improvement preceded atrio-ventricular node ablation.ConclusionAmongst AF patients with permanent AF undergoing CRT-D implantation, those patients who are likely to have the CRT-D device atrial-ports plugged could benefit from having both the options of (i) a RVA shock vector as well as (ii) a high RVS-pacing feasible, by utilizing the atrial-port of a conventional CRTD device for a RVS pacing lead, should a RVA shock-lead position be preferred. New device programming algorithms will be necessary to make patient-customized programming in this lead configuration flexible, more useful clinically and easy.     

普通电极导线行右房左室或双心室起搏的初步临床观察

探讨普通电极导线置入心脏静脉起搏左室的可行性。选择 9例患者为研究对象 ,其中扩张型心肌病 3例、缺血性心脏病 3例、其他 3例 ,均伴不同程度的心力衰竭 ,心功能Ⅱ～Ⅳ级。所有患者都安置DDD起搏器。窦性心律伴房室阻滞 (AVB)或完全性左束支阻滞 (CLBBB)患者 ,行右房左室顺序起搏 ;房颤患者行双心室起搏。左心室起搏是将普通右心室导线 (MedtronicCapSureSP 4 0 2 3)通过冠状窦送入心脏静脉施行的。结果 :7例成功 ,2例失败。导线定位在左室后静脉 1例、后侧静脉 3例、侧静脉 3例。术中测左室起搏阈电压、阻抗和R波振幅分别是 0 .7± 0 .2V、6 2 3± 6 6Ω、10 .1± 6 .0mV。术后 2～ 18个月阈电压、阻抗分别是 0 .5± 0V、5 2 1± 5 1Ω。术后 1～ 2周平均心功能从2 .9级改善到 1.9级 ,平均心胸比值从 0 .6 1缩小到 0 .5 7,平均左室射血分数从 0 .39升至 0 .4 4。随访期未发现左室导线脱位 ,膈肌起搏等并发症。结论 :普通电极导线置入心脏静脉长期起搏左心室是可行的、牢靠的。     

双心腔主动电极起搏与心房被动心室主动电极起搏的对比研究

目的:观察心房心室双螺旋主动电极在双腔心脏起搏器植入术中的有效性和安全性。方法:回顾性将90例符合双腔起搏器植入指征的患者分为心房心室双螺旋主动电极组(双螺旋电极组42例)与心房被动电极、心室螺旋主动电极组(单螺旋电极组48例)。观察2组术中及术后随访情况。结果:2组均成功植入起搏器及起搏电极。双螺旋电极组中1例孕妇零射线下完成双螺旋电极及起搏器植入;4例永存左上腔静脉患者在左侧锁骨下完成双螺旋电极及起搏器植入。双螺旋电极组和单螺旋电极组的手术时间及射线时间无显著差别,双螺旋电极组术后卧床时间显著缩短[(4.2±1.5)h vs(56.3±22.5)h,P0.05]。单螺旋电极组术中出现心房电极导线脱位3例,双螺旋电极组未见导线移位、心肌穿孔及心包填塞等情况。术后随访,2组均无电极脱落和起搏阈值升高。结论:心房心室双螺旋主动电极在双腔心脏起搏器植入术中安全可行,并不增加手术时间和射线时间,特别是应用于心腔结构异常和特殊患者,显著增加手术成功率。     

间隔部主动固定电极对老年患者心功能的影响

目的探讨右室间隔部（RVS）主动固定电极对植入永久起搏器的老年患者心功能的影响。方法入选78例植入永久起搏器的老年患者,分为RVS起搏组（实验组,植入主动固定电极,n=42）和右室心尖部（RVA）起搏组（对照组,植入被动固定电极,n=36）,以超声心动图评价两组术前、术后6个月左室缩短率（FS）、每搏输出量（SV）、心输出量（CO）、左室射血分数（LVEF）、E／AI：L值的差异。结果术前两组心功能状况无明显差异（P〉0．05）。术后6个月,RVS起博组与术前相比较,FS、SV、CO、EF、E／A虽有下降趋势,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;RVA起博组在术后6个月FS与对照组差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,但SV、CO、EF、E／A均高于RVS起博组（P〈0．05）。两组起搏阈值、感知、阻抗起搏比例及平均心率等差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论RVS起搏对患者心功能的影响优于右室心尖部起搏。     

Permanent, direct His-bundle pacing: a novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His-Purkinje activation

BACKGROUND: Direct His-bundle pacing (DHBP) produces synchronous ventricular depolarization and improved cardiac function relative to apical pacing. Although it has been performed transiently in the electrophysiology laboratory and persistently in open-chested canines, permanent DHBP in humans has not been achieved. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 18 patients aged 69+/-10 years who had a history of chronic atrial fibrillation, dilated cardiomyopathy, and normal activation (ie, QRS< or =120 ms) were screened for permanent DHBP using an electrophysiology catheter. In 14 patients, the His bundle could be reliably stimulated. Of these 14, permanent DHBP using a fixed screw-in lead was successful in 12 patients. Radiofrequency atrioventricular node ablation was performed in patients exhibiting a fast ventricular response. All patients received single-chamber rate-responsive pacemakers. Acute pacing thresholds were 2.4+/-1.0 V at a pulse duration of 0.5 ms. Lead complications included exit block requiring reoperative adjustment and gross lead dislodgment. Echocardiographic improvement in heart function was shown by reductions in the left ventricular end-diastolic dimension from 59+/-8 to 52+/-6 mm (P相似文献   

Persistent left-sided superior vena cava--a pacing challenge

A left sided superior vena cava (LSVC) occurs in 0.3% of the population. LSVC normally drains into the right atrium through a dilated coronary sinus. We illustrate two cases of dual chamber permanent pacemaker implantation by using (1) left subclavian vein in a 35-year-old woman with symptomatic Mobitz type II atrioventricular block; and (2) right subclavian vein in a 64-year-old man who was hospitalized with bradycardia, complete heart block, and alternating bundle branch block. After accessing the subclavian vein, the pacing leads were advanced into the LSVC, which was situated to the left of the vertebral column in the mediastinum. The leads followed the course of the LSVC medially before entering into the right atrium. Once inside the right atrium, the ventricular lead made a U-turn towards the tricuspid valve and into the right ventricle by shaping the stylet, and it was helped by right atrial contraction. An active fixation atrial lead was used in both cases to secure a satisfactory location within the right atrium. A small volume of contrast can be injected into the pacing sheath to visualize the coronary sinus opening into the right atrium, and the right ventricle. Fluoroscopy in oblique views can be helpful in guiding the atrial lead into the anteriorly positioned atrial appendage. In emergency transvenous ventricular temporary pacing where the subclavian or internal jugular vein is used, it is important to recognize the presence of a LSVC. The lead should first be directed into the right atrium and then looped back into the right ventricle. Excessive force must be avoided to prevent cardiac perforation and tamponade. If this is not successful, access through a femoral vein should be attempted.     

Minimally invasive video-assisted thoracoscopic left ventricular epicardial lead implantation for biventricular pacing in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing reduces symptoms and improves left ventricular function in many patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony. Implantation of the biventricular pacing lead in association with persistent left superior vena cava is technically challenging. We report a successful case of minimally invasive video-assisted thoracoscopic left ventricular epicardial lead implantation for biventricular pacing in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava.     

Safe right bundle branch block pattern during permanent right ventricular pacing

It is known that an electrocardiogram (ECG) after transvenous right ventricular (RV) pacing should yield left bundle branch block (LBBB) QRS patterns. When right bundle branch block (RBBB) pacing morphology appears in a patient with a permanent or temporary transvenous RV pacemaker, myocardial perforation or malposition of the pacing lead must be ruled out, even though the patient may be asymptomatic. We report a case of a 77-year-old man who underwent permanent transvenous VDD pacemaker implantation for symptomatic heart block. The postoperative ECG revealed a RBBB pacing configuration, but his chest X-ray and echocardiographic studies confirmed uncomplicated RV pacing. We review and discuss the literature concerning the differential diagnosis of such a safe RBBB ECG pattern.     

Two-dimensional echocardiography for the diagnosis of interventricular septum perforation by a temporary pacing catheter

This case study describes a patient with complete heart block inadvertently paced from the left ventricular posterior wall due to perforation of interventricular septum by a temporary pacing catheter. This is a rare but potentially fatal complication of pacing. The frontal chest radiograph neither identified abnormalities nor could determine the exact site of the catheter tip. The electrocardiogram revealed a right bundle branch block pattern. Echocardiography was performed immediately at bedside and the diagnosis was made. The temporary pacing catheter was removed without complications and, the next day, the patient underwent permanent pacemaker implantation. Given its noninvasiveness and availability, echocardiography is a highly effective means of assessing pacemaker complications such as catheter perforation.     

Optimal Stimulation of the Left Ventricle

Optimal Stimulation of the Left Ventricle. Cardiac resynchronization therapy has been proposed to alleviate heart failure symptoms refractory to classic drug treatment. Potential benefits hinge on a number of key components, including judicious selection of patients likely to respond to the therapy and appropriate placement of the leads, particularly the lead responsible for left ventricular pacing. Evidence of ventricular asynchrony is an individual prerequisite for consideration of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Ventricular asynchrony can be diagnosed by recording a QRS duration > 150 msec or during echocardiography, with the goal of investigating the mechanical aspect of asynchrony. The optimal left ventricular pacing site can be defined by the latest segmental contraction, which is mainly the mid‐lateral wall. The first‐choice technique to initiate left ventricular pacing consists of a transvenous approach via the coronary sinus tributaries. In practice, the final left ventricular pacing location also depends on highly variant coronary sinus anatomy, acceptable electrical parameters, and lead stability. Procedure‐related complications, which consist mainly of coronary sinus perforation and phrenic nerve stimulation, remain low (<1%) and should decrease further with the use of new features specific to the procedure.     

A temporary external DDD pacing unit

A device for temporary external DDD pacing was developed using a modified permanent pulse generator, and temporary atrial and ventricular electrode catheters were inserted pervenously. The atrial lead was a J type and the ventricular lead had a remote anode in the superior vena cava. With a special clamp and appropriate connectors the permanent DDD pulse generator provided unipolar external DDD pacing. The device was evaluated in 13 patients to control bradyarrhythmias or for overdrive pacing in an attempt to control tachyarrhythmias. Nine patients were ambulatory; all had continuous electrocardiographic monitoring. The device was used for 1 to 12 days (mean 4.9). Eight patients benefited from temporary DDD pacing and 7 had permanent DDD pacemakers implanted. In 1 patient, atrial fibrillation developed, 2 patients had brief episodes of ventricular lead displacement and another required reprogramming because of loss of ventricular capture. Results suggest that the device is applicable for a clinical trial of DDD pacing before possible permanent implantation when attempting to improve cardiac output or control arrhythmias.     

Persistent left‐sided superior vena cava – a pacing challenge

A left sided superior vena cava (LSVC) occurs in 0.3% of the population. LSVC normally drains into the right atrium through a dilated coronary sinus. We illustrate two cases of dual chamber permanent pacemaker implantation by using (1) left subclavian vein in a 35‐year‐old woman with symptomatic Mobitz type II atrioventricular block; and (2) right subclavian vein in a 64‐year‐old man who was hospitalized with bradycardia, complete heart block, and alternating bundle branch block.

After accessing the subclavian vein, the pacing leads were advanced into the LSVC, which was situated to the left of the vertebral column in the mediastinum. The leads followed the course of the LSVC medially before entering into the right atrium. Once inside the right atrium, the ventricular lead made a U‐turn towards the tricuspid valve and into the right ventricle by shaping the stylet, and it was helped by right atrial contraction. An active fixation atrial lead was used in both cases to secure a satisfactory location within the right atrium. A small volume of contrast can be injected into the pacing sheath to visualize the coronary sinus opening into the right atrium, and the right ventricle. Fluoroscopy in oblique views can be helpful in guiding the atrial lead into the anteriorly positioned atrial appendage.

In emergency transvenous ventricular temporary pacing where the subclavian or internal jugular vein is used, it is important to recognize the presence of a LSVC. The lead should first be directed into the right atrium and then looped back into the right ventricle. Excessive force must be avoided to prevent cardiac perforation and tamponade. If this is not successful, access through a femoral vein should be attempted.     

Echocardiography in Patients with Complications Related to Pacemakers and Cardiac Defibrillators

The evolving indications and uses for implantable cardiac devices have led to a significant increase in the number of implanted devices each year. Implantation of endocardial leads for permanent pacemakers and cardiac defibrillators can cause many delayed complications. Complications may be mechanical and related to the interaction of the device leads with the valves and endomyocardium, e.g., perforation, infection, and thrombosis, or due to the electrical pacing of the myocardium and conduction abnormalities, e.g., left ventricular dyssynchrony. Tricuspid regurgitation, another delayed complication in these patients, may be secondary to both mechanical and pacing effects of the device leads. Echocardiography plays an important role in the diagnosis of these device‐related complications. Both two‐dimensional transthoracic echocardiography and transesophageal echocardiography provide useful diagnostic information. Real time three‐dimensional echocardiography is a novel technique that can further enhance the detection of lead‐related complications.     

Permanent pacing using a coronary sinus lead in a patient with univentricular physiology: an extended application of biventricular pacing technology.

In the past, patients requiring permanent pacing with difficult right ventricular (RV) access were usually subjected to epicardial pacing by a surgical approach. This report describes a young patient with univentricular physiology following repeated palliative surgery for complex congenital heart disease. The patient had symptomatic complete heart block and a dual chamber pacemaker with transvenous atrial and ventricular leads was implanted successfully. The ventricle was paced through the posterolateral cardiac vein with a lead specially designed for cardiac resynchronization therapy. This case illustrates an extended application of the recently developed coronary sinus lead in selected patients, when conventional RV endocardial pacing is impossible.