Single Site Left Ventricular Pacing induced Dyssynchrony and Cardiomyopathy

Single site left ventricular (LV) pacing in the absence of intrinsic ventricular activity can be as detrimental to LV function as right ventricular apical pacing. This report describes a patient with complete heart block who developed significant dyssynchrony and cardiomyopathy secondary to single site lateral LV pacing. The process was reversed by placement of a second anterior LV lead. (PACE 2013; 36:e35–e37)     

Long-Term Experience with a Preshaped Left Ventricular Pacing Lead

OLLITRAULT, J., et al. : Long-Term Experience with a Preshaped Left Ventricular Pacing Lead. This study describes a long-term experience with a new LV pacing lead. The study population consisted of 62 patients (85% men,   71 ± 10   years old) with advanced dilated cardiomyopathy, in NYHA Class III or IV despite optimal drug therapy, and a QRS duration >150 ms. Patients in sinus rhythm were implanted with a triple chamber pacemaker to maintain atrioventricular synchrony. A dual chamber pacemaker was implanted in patients in atrial fibrillation for biventricular pacing only. A clinical evaluation and interrogation of the resynchronization pacemaker were performed at implant, at 1 week (W1), one (M1), four (M4), and seven (M7) months after implantation. A longer follow-up (2 years) is available for patients implanted at the authors institution. LV measurements were pacing threshold at 0.5-ms pulse duration and pacing impedance. R wave amplitude (mV) was measured at the time of implantation only. The system was successfully implanted in 86% of patients with the latest design of the lead. Mean R wave amplitude at implant was   15 ± 7 mV   and mean pacing impedance was   1054 ± 254 Ω   . Between implant   (n = 38)   and M7   (n = 15)   , pacing threshold rose from   0.73 ± 0.54   to   1.57 ± 0.60 V (P < 0.001)   . In conclusion, the situs lead was successfully implanted in a high percentage of patients. In addition, low pacing threshold and high impedance measured during follow-up are consistent with a low pacing current drain, ensuring a durable pulse generator longevity. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. II]:185–188)     

Is Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Pacing an Alternative to Left Ventricular/Biventricular Pacing?

The right ventricular apex has been used as the traditional pacing site since the development of transvenous pacing in 1959. Some studies suggest that pacing the right ventricular apex may cause remodeling and is harmful. In the past decade, there have been a multitude of studies of the hemodynamic, electrophysiological, electrocardiographic, and clinical effects of ventricular pacing at other sites. Pacing of the left ventricle singly or with biventricular pacing has emerged as an effective and safe therapy for moderate to severe congestive heart failure in patients with prolonged QRS complexes. Studies of alternate right ventricular sites, like the right ventricular outflow tract, have given mixed results. Not all patients can be treated with left ventricular pacing, which is a time-consuming and difficult procedure. Right ventricular pacing is easier and less expensive than left ventricular pacing and further study of additional right ventricular sites seems warranted. (PACE 2004; 27[Pt. II]:871–877)     

Backup Right Ventricular Pacing with a 0.035" Guidewire during Implantation of Left Ventricular Leads

Introduction: During implantation of biventricular devices, manipulation of the guiding sheath during localization of the coronary sinus (CS) ostium may result in injury to the right bundle and complete heart block. A preventive measure is to implant the right ventricular (RV) lead first, though this may interfere with manipulation of the guiding sheath and dislodge the permanent lead . We tested the feasibility of backup pacing with a 0.035" guidewire, advanced through the guiding sheath during CS localization.
Methods: One hundred six consecutive patients (mean age = 70 ± 11 years, 81 men) undergoing biventricular device implantation were studied. A 0.035" guidewire with an uncoated tip was advanced into the right ventricle through the guiding sheath, and unipolar capture threshold, R-wave sensing amplitude, and pacing impedance were measured.
Results: RV pacing was successful in all patients. The mean capture threshold was 3.8 ± 2.1 V/0.5 ms, R-wave amplitude 5.4 ± 4.3 mV, and pacing impedance 226 ± 78 Ω. No arrhythmia was observed during the tests. Two patients developed complete heart block during the implant procedure and were successfully paced temporarily using the 0.035" guidewire.
Conclusion: Temporary RV pacing, using a 0.035" guidewire within the guiding sheath, is a simple, reliable, and safe method that allows backup pacing in case of traumatic complete heart block, developing during the implantation of biventricular devices.     

Balloon‐Facilitated Delivery of a Left Ventricular Pacing Lead

While modern implant tools have contributed greatly to the success of cardiac resynchronization therapy, technical challenges remain. A common problem is the inability to advance left ventricular pacing leads into branch veins that are tortuous or arise at steep angles. In these cases, advancement of the lead causes it to buckle and prolapse into the coronary sinus or great cardiac vein. Lead prolapsed can be avoided by employing a balloon to temporarily obstruct the coronary sinus or great cardiac vein just upstream from the branch vein. The balloon redirects the force of advancement laterally into the branch vein, facilitating delivery. (PACE 2013; 36:e31–e34)     

Abolition of Diaphragmatic Pacing by Nonsurgical Retraction of a Left Ventricular Lead

This report describes the nonsurgical elimination of intractable diaphragmatic stimulation by partial withdrawal of a left ventricular (LV) pacing lead (in the coronary venous system) with resultant preservation of LV pacing. The procedure entailed the use of a deflectable catheter in the right atrium for ensnaring the LV lead. At the 3-month follow-up, the absence of diaphragmatic stimulation was associated with a satisfactory LV pacing threshold and dramatic clinical improvement from effectual biventricular pacing.     

Asystole Following Left Ventricular Pacing

During biventricular ICD implantation, pacing the epicardial inferior posterior-lateral surface of the left ventricle via the coronary sinus produced asystole. The proposed mechanism is a Bezold-Jarisch reflex manifested by a drop in heart rate and blood pressure through direct C fiber stimulation. (PACE 2004; 27[Pt. I]:815–817)     

Usefulness of a Pacing Guidewire to Facilitate Left Ventricular Lead Implantation in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background: Intraoperative measurements of left ventricular (LV) pacing and sensing values were assessed using a novel 0.014-inch guidewire (Visionwire^®, Biotronik GmbH, Berlin, Germany) enabling pacing and sensing at the distal tip before final LV lead implantation .
Methods: Twenty-two consecutive patients selected for cardiac resynchronization therapy were studied .
Results: Significant correlation was found between the LV pacing threshold as assessed by the Visionwire^® and values after final LV lead implantation (r = 0.92, P < 0.001). Correlation for LV sensing was also significant (r = 0.72, P < 0.001). No significant correlation was present with respect to phrenic nerve stimulation. However, no phrenic nerve stimulation at 10 V/0.5 ms using the Visionwire^® identified 88% of patients without phrenic nerve stimulation at 10 V/0.5 ms with subsequent LV lead measurements .
Conclusion: This technique may facilitate transvenous LV lead implantation by preventing implantation in a unsuitable target vessel with respect to pacing and sensing values or phrenic nerve stimulation, thereby reducing procedure and fluoroscopy time .     

Alternative Techniques for Left Ventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important treatment modality for a well‐defined subgroup of heart failure patients. Coronary sinus (CS) lead placement is the first‐line clinical approach but the insertion is unsuccessful in about 5–10% of the patients. In recent years, the number of CRT recipients and the considerable need for left ventricular (LV) lead revisions increased enormously. Numerous techniques and technologies have been specifically developed to provide alternatives for the CS LV pacing. Currently, the surgical access is most frequently used as a second choice by either minithoracotomy or especially the video‐assisted thoracoscopy. The transseptal or transapical endocardial LV lead implantations are being developed but there are no longer follow‐up data in larger patient cohorts. These new techniques should be reserved for patients failing conventional or surgical CRT implants. In the future, randomized studies are needed to asses the potential benefits of some alternative LV pacing techniques and other new technologies for LV lead placement are expected.     

Seven Years of Left Ventricular Pacing Due to Malposition of Pacing Electrode

The case report is presented of a patient in whom an uncomplicated left ventricular transvenous pacing produced right bundle branch block (RBBB). A diagnostic echocardiography, confirmed by cine cardiovascular computed tomography, showed that there was no rupture of the right ventricle and diagnosed a left ventricular pacing, due to malposition of the pacing electrode. The patient was treated with aspirin and dipyridamole during the last 6 years of follow-up, without any complications, including 1 year of pacing, prior to admission.     

A New Endocardial "Over-the-Wire" or Stylet-Driven Left Ventricular Lead:

Transvenous left ventricular (LV) leads are primarily inserted "over-the-wire" (OTW). However, a stylet-driven (SD) approach may be a helpful alternative. A new polyurethane-coated, unipolar LV lead can be placed either by a stylet or a guide wire, which can be inserted into the lead body from both ends. The multicenter OVID study evaluates the clinical performance of this new steroid- and nonsteroid eluting lead. The primary endpoint is the LV lead implant success rate after identification of the coronary sinus (CS). Secondary endpoints include complication rate, short- and long-term lead characteristics, overall procedure and LV lead placement duration, total fluoroscopy time, and lead handling characteristics ratings. To date, 96 patients with heart failure (68 ± 9 years old, 76% men) are enrolled. The CS was identified in 95 patients and, in 85 (88.5%), the LV lead was successfully implanted. The final lead positioning was lateral in 41%, posterolateral in 35%, anterolateral in 18%, and great cardiac vein in 6% of patients. In 70%, the 85 successful implantations, both stylet-driven and guide-wire techniques were used, a stylet only was used in 22%, and a guide wire only in 8%. Mean overall duration of 85 successful procedures was 112 ± 40 minutes, total fluoroscopy time 28 ± 15 minutes, and the duration of LV lead placement was 35 ± 29 minutes. During a 3-month follow-up, the loss of LV capture occurred in three and phrenic nerve stimulation in six patients. The mean long-term pacing threshold is 0.8 V/0.5 ms and pacing impedance is 550 Ω. The OVID data suggest that these new leads are safe and effective. The choice of both OTW and SD techniques during lead implantation offers greater procedural flexibility.     

Upgrading from Single Chamber Right Ventricular to Biventricular Pacing in Permanently Paced Patients with Worsening Heart Failure: The RD-CHF Study

Background: Biventricular (BiV) stimulation lowers morbidity and mortality in patients with drug-refractory congestive heart failure (CHF), depressed left ventricular (LV) function, and ventricular dyssynchrony in absence of indication for permanent cardiac pacing. This pilot, single-blind, randomized, cross-over study examined the safety and efficacy of upgrading conventional pacing systems to BiV stimulation in patients with advanced CHF .
Methods: We included 56 patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes III or IV despite optimal drug treatment and ventricular dyssynchrony (interventriclar delay >40 ms or LV preejection delay >140 ms) in need of pacemaker replacement. We compared the patients' functional status, arrhythmias, and standard echocardiographic measurements during 3 months of conventional, single right ventricular (RV) versus 3 months of BiV stimulation .
Results: There were 44 patients in the cross-over phase. QRS duration was shortened by 23% and LV preejection delay by 16% with BiV stimulation. NYHA functional class, 6-minute hall walk and quality of life score were significantly improved with BiV stimulation compared with single RV pacing by 18%, 29%, and 19%, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the ventricular arrhythmia burden or LV reverse remodeling between the 2 periods .
Conclusions: This pilot study showed that upgrading from RV pacing to BiV pacing significantly improves symptoms and exercise tolerance in chronically paced patients with advanced CHF and mechanical dyssynchrony .     

Variability of Left Ventricular Electromechanical Activation during Right Ventricular Pacing: Implications for the Selection of the Optimal Pacing Site

Background: The right ventricular septum (RVS) and Hisian area (HA) are considered more “physiological” pacing sites than right ventricular apex (RVA). Studies comparing RVS to RVA sites have produced controversial results. There are no data about variability of electromechanical activation obtained by an approach using fluoroscopy and electrophysiological markers. This study compared the variability of left ventricular (LV) electromechanical activation in patients undergoing short‐term RVA and RVS with that measured during HA pacing based on fluoroscopy and electrophysiological markers. Methods: Tissue Doppler echocardiography was performed in 142 patients before and after RVA (54), RVS (44), and HA (44) pacing. Electromechanical activation was assessed by: (1) electromechanical latency (EML)‐interval between QRS onset and mechanical activation of basal LV; (2) intra‐LV dyssynchrony (intra‐LV)‐interval between earliest to the latest LV basal motion. The intra‐ and interpatients variability among pacing groups were assessed. Results: Pacing from RVA showed longer EML and higher degree of intra‐LV than RVS and HA pacing. RVA and RVS showed a higher variability than HA pacing with regard to intrapatient changes of EML (RVA vs RVS, P = 0.4; RVS vs HA, P = 0.01, RVA vs HA, P = 0.0002) and intra‐LV (RVA vs RVS, P = 0.2; RVS vs HA, P = 0.04; RVA vs HA, P = 0.005). Similar results were found in interpatients variability from paced‐values. Conclusions: RVA and RVS pacing produce a variable effect on LV electromechanical activation that is significantly more pronounced than HA pacing. A pacing site such as HA selected by fluoroscopic and electrophysiological markers maintains baseline and homogeneous LV activation pattern. (PACE 2010; 566–574)     

The Effect of Ventricular Activation Sequence on Cardiac Performance During Pacing

The aim of this study was to evaluate the importance of a normal ventricular activation pattern for cardiac performance. In nine mongrel clogs, atrial pacing was compared to AV synchronous pacing at three different A V delays (150, 100, and 60 nis). In six dogs, proximal septal AV synchronous pacing was compared to apical A V synchronous pacing at three different A V delays. AV synchronous pacing was performed after RF induced complete heart block. Hemodynarnics were evaluated by assessment of positive and negative dP/dt, cardiac output, and left ventricular and pulmonary pressures. Atrial pacing was superior to AV synchronous pacing with respect to positive and negative dP/dt and cardiac output. This difference was present at all AV delays. Proximal septal pacing was associated with a higher positive and negative dP/dl compared to apical pacing at all AV delays. Left ventricular activation time was significantly shorter during proximal septal pacing than during apical pacing (88 ± 4 vs 115 ± 4 ms, P < 0.001). We conclude that atrial and proximal septal pacing improves cardiac function and shortens the ventricular activation time compared to apical AV synchronous pacing independent of the AV interval.     

Use of Triple-Site Ventricular Pacing in a Patient with Severe Congestive Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become an accepted treatment for selected patients with drug-resistant heart failure. Data for patients in atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited but suggests benefit in these patients too. We report the case of an 82-year-old patient with heart failure, VVIR permanent pacemaker, and permanent AF who had an upgrade to triple-site CRT implantation with good clinical response. Triple-site ventricular pacing may enhance the chance of response and LV reverse remodeling and should be considered in AF patients undergoing CRT implantation.     

Transcutaneous Cardiac Pacing: Evaluation of Cardiac Activation

ALTAMURA, G., ET AL.: Transcutaneous Cardiac Pacing: Evaluation of Cardiac Activation. The effects of transcutaneous cardiac pacing (TCP) on cardiac activation were evaluated by endocavitary recording (HRA, RVA) in eight patients, in order to test the possibility to obtain a simultaneous atrial and ventricular stimulation. The transcutaneous pacemaker used was the Pace Aid 52 (pacing rate 50–160 ppm, current output 10–150 mA, pulse width 20 sec). The two skin electrodes [surface area 50 cm²) were placed on the chest in anteroposterior position. Ventricular capture was observed in all patients [threshold = 74 ± 14 mA), simultaneous atrial capture was obtained in only four cases (threshold = 138 ± 25 mA). In conclusion, our data show that four-chamber simultaneous stimulation by TCP is possible, but only with pacing energies much higher than those usually required to capture the ventricle. The ability of TCP to simultaneously pace the atria and ventricles, though not relevant in the emergency cardiac stimulation for symptomatic severe bradyarrhythmias, could be useful in the treatment of reentrant supraventricular tachycardias.     

Bifocal Right Ventricular Cardiac Resynchronization Therapies in Patients with Unsuccessful Percutaneous Lateral Left Ventricular Venous Access

Biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with a lateral left ventricular (LV) lead cannot always be achieved. We report a single center experience of CRT utilizing a protocol that specifically required the implantation of a bifocal right ventricular (RV) lead system when lateral LV pacing could not be achieved. Consecutive candidates for CRT were included in the study. If strict criteria for lateral LV pacing were not met, they underwent implantation of a bifocal RV lead system with two 7F, active fixation leads, one placed septally at the apex, and the other in the high septal outflow tract. All patients were followed for 12 months and the two groups were compared. A biventricular (BiV) stimulation system was implanted in 44 patients, and a bifocal RV system in six. The demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Both groups experienced a similar improvement in functional capacity, increase in 6 minutes walking distance, and decreased need for hospitalizations. The mean increase in LV ejection fraction was 11% in the bifocal RV group versus 10% in the BiV group. Though the tissue Doppler indices of LV synchrony improved earlier in the BiV group, (19% vs 10%) the improvement was similar in both groups at 6 months (23% vs 20%). The clinical improvements conferred by CRT can be matched by a bifocal RV system in selected patients. This alternate approach should be considered when implantation of a LV lateral lead was unsuccessful.