Distal balloon occlusion allows epicardial lead placement in a tortuous branch of the great cardiac vein

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well established treatment modality in heart failure. Using standard techniques, placement of the left ventricular (LV) lead is usually successful; however LV lead placement failure remains a clinical problem. In the present report, the standard over-the-wire technique was not successful due to absence of the necessary support to place the lead into a tortuous vein. This was achieved using balloon occlusion of the great cardiac vein distal to the target vessel. An 81 year old female candidate for CRT presented for biventricular pacemaker implantation. After placement of the right ventricular lead, the CS was cannulated and an occlusive venogram was performed. A lateral branch was selected as the target vessel. Initial attempts at cannulating the vessel were unsuccessful due to the guidewire and telescoping delivery system prolapsing into the great cardiac vein. The acute angle prevented instrumentation of the branch with the tools available. A second parallel CS sheath was advanced to drive a balloon catheter used to occlude the great cardiac vein distal to the target vessel. This provided support for the guidewire and lead allowing their advancement through the tortuous vessel. Consecutive traction on the balloon during also helped to reflect the lead towards the vessel. The lead remained stable in its final position on the lateral wall of the LV with appropriate thresholds and no diaphragmatic stimulation. We report a case where balloon occlusion of the great cardiac vein distal to the target branch aided in advancing the LV lead into the desired position. This approach can be used in navigating lead placement to branches thought to be unreachable. Techniques such as this can decrease the failure rate of CRT implants.     

Percutaneous coronary sinus interventions to facilitate implantation of left ventricular lead: a case series and review of literature

BackgroundValves, stenosis, and occlusion in the coronary sinus (CS) may affect the success of left ventricular (LV) lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We present our experience in percutaneous CS intervention (PCSI) to facilitate LV lead implantation and stabilization.Methods and ResultsTransvenous LV lead implantation was attempted for CRT in a total of 255 patients (mean age 61.0 ± 12.5 y; 60 female, 160 ischemic etiologies) from January 2005 to November 2010. Seventeen patients (6.7%) needed PCSI. PCSI indications were stenosis in 10 patients, CS valve in 5 patients, chronic venous occlusion in 1 patient, and LV lead stabilization in 1 patient. CS angioplasty was performed in 16 patients (6.2%) and stenting in 3 patients (1.2%) to facilitate LV lead placement. Two patients needed both balloon angioplasty and stenting. LV leads were successfully inserted in 15/17 (88.2%) of the patients who needed PCSI. There were no complications related to PCSI. The overall success rate of LV lead implantation increased from 238/255 (93.3%) to 253/255 (99.2%) with the use of PCSI.ConclusionsPCSI is a useful and safe technique in transvenous LV lead placement in case of CS stenosis, valves, and lead instability.     

Initial clinical experience with cardiac resynchronization therapy utilizing a magnetic navigation system

Introduction: The placement of left ventricular (LV) leads during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) involves many technical difficulties. These difficulties increase procedural times and decrease procedural success rates. Methods and Results: A total of 50 patients with severe cardiomyopathy (mean LV ejection fraction was 21 ± 6%) and a wide QRS underwent CRT implantation. Magnetic navigation (Stereotaxis, Inc.) was used to position a magnet‐tipped 0.014″ guidewire (Cronus? guidewire) within the coronary sinus (CS) vasculature. LV leads were placed in a lateral CS branch, either using a standard CS delivery sheath or using a “bare‐wire” approach without a CS delivery sheath. The mean total procedure time was 98.1 ± 29.1 minutes with a mean fluoroscopy time of 22.7 ± 15.1 minutes. The mean LV lead positioning time was 10.4 ± 7.6 minutes. The use of a delivery sheath was associated with longer procedure times 98 ± 32 minutes vs 80 ± 18 minutes (P = 0.029), fluoroscopy times 23 ± 15 minutes vs 13 ± 4 minutes (P = 0.0007) and LV lead positioning times 10 ± 6 minutes vs 4 ± 2 minutes (P = 0.015) when compared to a “bare‐wire” approach. When compared with 52 nonmagnetic‐assisted control CRT cases, magnetic navigation reduced total LV lead positioning times (10.4 ± 7.6 minutes vs 18.6 ± 18.9 minutes; P = 0.005). If more than one CS branch vessel was tested, magnetic navigation was associated with significantly shorter times for LV lead placement (16.2 ± 7.7 minutes vs 36.4 ± 23.4 minutes; P = 0.004). Conclusions: Magnetic navigation is a safe, feasible, and efficient tool for lateral LV lead placement during CRT. Magnetic navigation during CRT allows for control of the tip direction of the Cronus? 0.014″ guidewire using either a standard CS delivery sheath or “bare‐wire” approach. Although there are some important limitations to the 0.014″ Cronus? magnetic navigation can decrease LV lead placement times compared with nonmagnetic‐assisted control CRT cases, particularly if multiple CS branches are to be tested.     

Transseptal endocardial left ventricular pacing: an alternative technique for coronary sinus lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Coronary sinus (CS) lead placement for transvenous left ventricular (LV) pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has a failure rate at implant and short-term follow-up between 10% and 15%. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of transseptal endocardial LV pacing in patients in whom transvenous CS lead placement had failed. METHODS: An atrial transseptal LV lead placement was attempted in 10 patients (six females, age 69.4 +/- 9.6 years), in whom CS lead placement for CRT had failed. After transseptal puncture and septal dilatation from the femoral route, the left atrium was cannulated with a combination of catheters and guide wires from the left or right subclavian vein. After advancement of this guide catheter into the LV, a standard bipolar screw-in lead could be implanted in the posterolateral wall. All patients were maintained on anticoagulant therapy with warfarin after implant. RESULTS: An LV lead could be successfully implanted in nine of the 10 patients. The stimulation threshold was 0.78 +/- 0.24 V, and the R-wave amplitude was 14.2 +/- 9.7 mV. At 2 months' follow-up, the stimulation threshold was 1.48 +/- 0.35 V with a 0.064 +/- 0.027 ms pulse width. There was no phrenic nerve stimulation observed in any of the patients. There were no thromboembolic complications at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: LV transseptal endocardial lead implantation from the pectoral area is a feasible approach in patients with a failed CS approach and in whom epicardial surgical lead placement is not an option. Longer follow-up is warranted to determine the risk of thromboembolic complications.     

Preferred left ventricular lead position for upgrade from right ventricular pacing to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Introduction

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is well-established for treating symptomatic heart failure with electrical dyssynchrony. The left ventricular (LV) lead position is recommended at LV posterolateral to lateral sites in patients with left bundle branch block; however, its preferred region remains unclear in patients being upgraded from right ventricular (RV) apical pacing to CRT. This study aimed to identify the preferred LV lead position for upgrading conventional RV apical pacing to CRT.

Methods

We used electrode catheters positioned at the RV apex and LV anterolateral and posterolateral sites via the coronary sinus (CS) branches to measure the ratio of activation time to QRS duration from the RV apex to the LV anterolateral and posterolateral sites during RV apical pacing. Simultaneous biventricular pacing was performed at the RV apex and each LV site, and the differences in QRS duration and LV dP/dt_max from those of RV apical pacing were measured.

Results

Thirty-seven patients with anterolateral and posterolateral LV CS branches were included. During RV apical pacing, the average ratio of activation time to QRS duration was higher at the LV anterolateral site than at the LV posterolateral site (0.90 ± 0.06 vs. 0.71 ± 0.11, p < .001). The decreasing ratio of QRS duration and the increasing ratio of LV dP/dt_max were higher at the LV anterolateral site than at the posterolateral site (45.7 ± 18.0% vs. 32.0 ± 17.6%, p < .001; 12.7 ± 2.9% vs. 3.7 ± 8.2%, p < .001, respectively) during biventricular pacing compared with RV apical pacing.

Conclusion

The LV anterolateral site is the preferred LV lead position in patients being upgraded from conventional RV apical pacing to CRT.     

Relation of left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy to left ventricular reverse remodeling and to diastolic dyssynchrony

The effects of left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on LV remodeling and dyssynchrony are not well defined. Sixty-one patients (age 60 +/- 11 years, 76% men) were evaluated by echocardiography before and 4 +/- 2 months after CRT and grouped by the LV lead placement (lateral, posterolateral, or anterolateral). Echocardiographic measurements included LV volumes and LV ejection fraction. Tissue Doppler imaging was used to assess for inter- and intraventricular systolic and diastolic dyssynchrony. Analysis of variance was used to determine the effect of the LV lead placement on echocardiographic variables after CRT. The LV lead was placed in a lateral cardiac vein in 33 patients (54%), posterolateral in 15 (25%), and anterior in 13 (21%). Lateral LV lead placement was associated with significantly smaller LV volumes compared with the posterolateral lead placement (p <0.01). Diastolic dyssynchrony improved significantly with lateral lead placement compared with the anterior lead location (p <0.05). Improvement in LV ejection fraction and inter- and intraventricular systolic dyssynchrony was similar among the 3 groups. In conclusion, in patients undergoing CRT, a lateral lead location resulted in greater reverse LV remodeling and improved diastolic dyssynchrony compared with other lead placement locations.     

Challenging pacemaker implantation: Persistent left superior vena cava with absent right superior vena cava

A persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) in combination with an absent right superior vena cava (RSVC) is a rare congenital cardiovascular abnormality which is usually found by chance during pacemaker (PM) implantation. In this case we describe a PM implantation using right cephalic approach through PLSVC and coronary sinus (CS), with lead fixation in right atrium and a posterolateral branch of the CS.     

双室同步起搏的临床应用及置入左室电极的初步体会

观察双室同步起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭 (CHF)的疗效 ,探讨左室电极置入的方法及注意事项。 10例患者均为原发性扩张型心肌病 (DCM)并CHF ,符合双室同步起搏治疗的指征。其中 8例置入Medtronic 2 187电极 ,1例置入Medtronic 2 188电极 ,1例置入右室主动固定电极。 9例左室电极置入成功 ,1例失败改行右室双部位起搏 ,术后患者左室舒张未径、左室射血分数及 6min步行距离均有改善 (术后 3个月与术前分别比较 :70 .8± 9.5vs 79.5± 12 .5mm ,0 .4 2± 0 .13vs 0 .2 5± 0 .10 ,384 .8± 4 5 .4vs 2 78.6± 34.5m ;P <0 .0 5或 0 .0 1)。借助电生理冠状静脉窦 (CS)标测电极、CS造影 (包括直接逆行CS造影和冠状动脉造影使CS间接显像 )对指导左室电极的置入有较大的价值。结论 :双室同步起搏治疗CHF疗效肯定 ,借助CS标测电极及CS造影可提高左室电极置入的成功率     

Three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping of the coronary veins during cardiac resynchronization therapy implant: feasibility and possible applications

Purpose

Left ventricular (LV) electrical activation pattern could determine optimal LV lead placement site during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implant. We sought to determine the feasibility of using EnSite NavX? electroanatomic mapping system (St. Jude Medical Inc., St. Paul, MN) to assess LV electrical activation during CRT implant.

Methods

Patients (n?=?32; NYHA III, LVEF <35 %, QRSd >120 ms) underwent NavX? mapping during CRT implant. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was present during sinus rhythm in group A (n?=?17), whereas LBBB was induced by permanent RV apical pacing in group B (n?=?15). Following coronary sinus (CS) cannulation, a coil tip 0.014-in. guidewire was introduced into all available CS branches as a mapping electrode. Each patient’s unipolar activation map was successfully constructed within 10 min, using the onset of surface QRS as reference.

Results

LV activation patterns were complex and varied in both groups. Earliest activation was usually apical, but latest activation was more heterogenous. The lateral or posterolateral branches were the sites of latest activation in 47 % of group A and 73 % of group B. An LV lead positioned conventionally by a physician blinded to the mapping data was concordant with the latest activated segment in 18 % of group A and none of group B patients.

Conclusions

Electroanatomic mapping of the CS tributaries is feasible and clinically practicable. Mapping revealed heterogenous conduction patterns that vary between patients in each group and between groups. An LV lead empirically placed in a lateral branch rarely paces the optimal, latest activated vein segment.     

Impact of coronary sinus lead position on biventricular pacing: mortality and echocardiographic evaluation during long-term follow-up

INTRODUCTION: Biventricular pacing is an established treatment for congestive heart failure. Whether the anatomic location of the coronary sinus (CS) lead affects outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical response and mortality in patients who had transvenous CS leads placed in different anatomic branches for biventricular pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated 233 consecutive patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV heart failure and ejection fraction <35% who had successful placement of a transvenous left ventricular lead through a CS venous branch. Patients were divided into two groups based on anatomic lead position. Group 1 (n = 66) included leads in the anterior and anterolateral branches. Group 2 (n = 167) included leads in the lateral and posterolateral branches. Postimplant, functional capacity improved from an average 3.1 to 2.7 in group 1 (P = 0.001) and from 3.1 to 2.3 in group 2 (P = 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measured by transthoracic echocardiography did not improve significantly in group 1 (pre-LVEF 18%, post-LVEF 20%; P = NS) but increased significantly from 19% to 27% in group 2 (P = 0.008). Despite the difference in ejection fraction response, the mortality in the two groups after a mean follow-up of 546 days was similar (13.6% group 1 vs 17.9% group 2). CONCLUSION: Placement of the CS lead in the lateral and posterolateral branches is associated with significant improvement in functional capacity and greater improvement in left ventricular function compared with the anterior CS location. This improvement does not appear to influence mortality.     

一种新型Visionwire标测导丝在心脏再同步化治疗中的应用

目的探讨一种新型Visionwire标测导丝在心脏再同步化治疗(CRT)左室电极植入过程中的应用价值。方法 5例因心力衰竭接受CRT的患者,分别采用Visionwire导丝及左室电极到达可植入左室电极的冠状静脉(CS)分支内进行起搏参数测试及电生理标测,比较两种方法的起搏参数测试、电生理标测结果及手术时间。结果在5例患者的16个CS分支中,两种方法所测的起搏参数值无显著性差异,二者的起搏阈值有强相关性(r=0.90,P<0.01),感知亦有相关性(r=0.67,P<0.01),二者最大起搏电压引起膈肌刺激的部位相似。应用Visionwire导丝可以进行局部电位电激动顺序标测。Visionwire导丝对单个CS分支进行起搏参数测定比应用左室电极进行起搏参数测定所需时间明显缩短(12.4±7.5 min vs 18.3±12.2 min,P<0.01)。结论应用Visionwire标测导丝可以预测CS分支的左室电极起搏参数,根据局部电位延迟可准确定位左室电极植入部位。     

Coronary sinus anatomy by computerized tomography, overlaid on live fluoroscopy can be successfully used to guide left ventricular lead implantation: a feasibility study

Objective

This study aims to optimize coronary sinus (CS) computerized tomography (CT) imaging and evaluate its utility for preprocedural planning and intraoperative guidance by overlay of 3D reconstructed CS images on live fluoroscopy.

Background

Optimal CS lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains challenging. Preprocedural knowledge of CS anatomy can significantly affect procedural outcome. Optimal CS imaging protocols by CT have not been well defined.

Methods

Seventeen consecutive CRT recipients underwent contrast-enhanced functional cardiac CT on a 64-slice scanner. The CS target branch closest to the most dyssynchronous LV segment was identified. 3D volume rendered CS images were superimposed onto live fluoroscopy via EP Navigator (Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands) to guide CS cannulation and lead placement. The imaging protocol was optimized.

Results

CT images were successfully reconstructed and overlaid on live fluoroscopy in 16/17 patients. The overlay facilitated CS cannulation and lead placement into a predefined target branch. Excellent correlation between CT and angiographic CS anatomy was noted. By using the overlaid 3D CS as a road map, average total fluoroscopy time (14.56?±?4.22 min) was significantly shorter when compared to historical controls. Total radiation exposure was significantly higher in the CT-guided group. Images obtained using double bolus injection and gated acquisition at 40 % of the cardiac cycle contained the most anatomical detail of the CS.

Conclusion

Overlay of 3D CS anatomy defined by preprocedural cardiac CT is feasible. It allows planning of CRT implantation and live guidance of CS lead placement into a predefined target branch. Limiting the CT imaging to 40 % of the cardiac cycle phase provides optimal CS images and reduces radiation exposure. This approach may result in shorter procedural time and more optimal CS lead positioning. However, the concept remains to be confirmed by future studies.     

Transcardiac increase in tumor necrosis factor-alpha and left ventricular end-diastolic volume in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha and interleukin-6 (IL-6) are secreted from the failing heart and whether there is a relationship between the transcardiac gradients of these cytokines and left ventricular (LV) remodeling. AIMS: This study evaluated the relationship between transcardiac gradients of cytokines and LV volume and function in congestive heart failure patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured the plasma levels of TNF-alpha and IL-6 in the aortic root (Ao) and the coronary sinus (CS) in 60 patients with DCM. There was no difference in plasma IL-6 between the Ao and the CS. However, the plasma TNF-alpha level was significantly higher in the CS than that in the Ao. There was a significant correlation between the transcardiac gradient of plasma TNF-alpha and the LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) and LV ejection fraction. According to stepwise multivariate analyses, the transcardiac increase of TNF-alpha showed an independent and significantly positive relationship with a large LVEDVI. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the elevated plasma TNF-alpha is partly derived from the failing heart in patients with DCM and that TNF-alpha plays a potential role in structural LV remodeling in patients with DCM.     

Implications and outcome of permanent coronary sinus lead extraction and reimplantation

OBJECTIVE: We examined the implications and outcome of coronary sinus (CS) lead removal including the feasibility of laser use within the CS. BACKGROUND: Cardiac anatomy and lead interactions are more complex with the advent of biventricular pacemakers and atrial cardioverters requiring permanent lead/shocking coil placement in the coronary sinus and its branches. METHODS: Fifty-five permanent cardiac leads were extracted during 2003 in 28 consecutive patients. Our study population included a 10/55 (18%) subset (all males; age 73 +/- 6 years; EF = 0.24 +/- 0.09) that underwent CS (1/10) or vein branch (9/10) lead extraction. Leads were extracted with an excimer laser sheath (n = 4) or by direct traction (n = 6). Median times between implantation and lead removal were 9.5 months (range 5-59) in the laser group and 3 months (range 3-4) in the direct traction group. Indication for extraction was infection (n = 4), dislodgement (n = 3), diaphragm stimulation (n = 2), and elevated threshold (n = 1). The CS was divided into distal, mid, and proximal segments by venogram. RESULTS: Entry of the laser sheath into the CS was necessary in three of four laser patients. The two distal CS laser cases (left lateral CS coil and anterior-lateral left ventricular (LV) lead) required both 14- and 12-Fr sheaths, separately. The proximal CS laser case (posterior-lateral LV lead) required a 12 Fr sheath. The remaining laser patient required a 12-Fr sheath to pass to the mid SVC. There were no procedural complications as a result of CS lead extraction. Reimplantation of a CS lead was attempted in 7/10 patients at a median of 4 days (range 1-300). CS venograms were available for review in patients before initial implantation (6/10) and after extraction (7/10). The postextraction venograms demonstrated complete occlusion of the vein from which the lead was extracted, and its distal branches, which were unusable in 5/10 (50%). The vein occlusions were present in patients with indwelling leads for greater than 3 months and were independent of extraction method. CONCLUSIONS: Laser lead extraction in the coronary sinus appears feasible in carefully selected cases with mandatory indications. However, special intraoperative monitoring and echocardiographic imaging with surgical backup ready is strongly recommended. Target vein selection may be limited for the purpose of reimplantation when leads are indwelling for greater than 3 months.     

Prolonged inflation of coronary angioplasty balloon as treatment for subocclusive dissection of the coronary sinus during implantation of a coronary sinus pacing lead

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with biventricular stimulation is an accepted treatment procedure for patients with severe heart failure (NYHA class III/IV), low left ventricle ejection fraction, and left bundle branch block, in spite of optimal medical treatment (Smith, S. C. Jr, Feldman, T. E., Hirshfeld, J. W. Jr, Jacobs, A. K., Kern, M. J., King, S. B. et al. Circulation, 113(7), e166–e286, (2006)). In the ventricular resynchronization procedure, an electrode must be implanted, via the coronary sinus (CS), in a coronary vein of the left ventricle (LV). Insertion of guide catheters and guide wires through the CS towards the target vein may produce more or less extensive dissections and staining which makes visualizing the target vein opening difficult and gives rise to deferment of the procedure. We describe a case of CS dissection, produced by the catheter guide, resulting in a venous wall flap which impeded further advancement of the lead. This was treated with prolonged inflation of a coronary angioplasty balloon, which allowed completion of the procedure in the same surgical intervention. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the successful use of a coronary angioplasty balloon to resolve this complication of electrode implantation.     

Left ventricular lead placement within a coronary sinus side branch using remote magnetic navigation of a guidewire: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND: A novel magnetic navigation system (MNS) allowing remote guidance of catheters and guidewires might assist in implantation of left ventricular (LV) pacing leads. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of deploying a LV pacing lead into a coronary sinus (CS) side branch using a magnetically guided wire and of performing the procedure without a CS guiding sheath. METHODS: Twenty-one patients were included in this study. Nine underwent CRT device implantation using a MNS to steer the guidewire (MNS group) while 12 patients were conventionally implanted (control group). In 6 patients in the MNS group, the procedure was performed using a CS guiding sheath. In 3 others, the decision was to perform the procedure without a CS sheath. In these patients the wire was advanced manually, while the external magnets oriented it toward the CS os. In the CS, "vector based" navigation was used to guide the wire to the desired side branch. RESULTS: In all 9 patients in the MNS group, the target vessel could be successfully engaged by the magnetically guided wire. In 7, the LV lead was lodged in the target vessel. In 2 patients, the LV lead was repositioned in an anterolateral side branch due to instability or inability to engage the vessel with it. Mean total procedure time was 164 +/- 58 minutes (without sheath 229 +/- 52 vs with sheath 132 +/- 26 minutes; P = 0.007). Mean fluoroscopy time was 28 +/- 9 minutes. For control patients, the procedure and fluoroscopy time were similar (144 +/- 41 minutes and 26 +/- 12 minutes, respectively). No major complications occurred. CONCLUSION: LV lead implantation can be performed using a remote magnetically steered guidewire. Though the lead could be implanted without a CS guiding sheath, longer procedure times were required.     

2187导线在左心室起搏中的应用价值

目的寻找左心室电极导线的导入途经和技术要点及其在双心室起搏中的临床实用价值.方法 9例病人,男性8例,均为药物治疗无效合并CLBBB的顽固性心力衰竭.CS造影7例采用逆行法,2例采用顺行法显示CS.选择可剥脱CS导引导管和左室电极导线(Medtronic,2187),采用左锁骨下静脉穿刺法,经CS将电极导线置于CS左心室属支,起搏左心室.结果无论是逆行还是顺行冠状动脉造影,均清晰显示CS及其属支静脉.6例病人经导引导管将2187导线成功导入靶静脉,3例病人直接导入2187导线.电极导线尖端1例插进心大静脉远端,2例位于左室侧缘静脉,2例放在左室后静脉, 4例导入左室后侧静脉.导线到位后测量的各起搏参数均符合起搏要求,长期随访未见导线脱位和起搏功能的变化.结论 CS顺行和逆行造影均可清晰显示CS及其属支;直接或经导引导管皆可将2187电极导线导入靶静脉;应用2187型LV电极导线经CS左心室心外膜起搏技术可行、安全可靠,可广泛临床应用.     

电生理标测冠状静脉窦分支最延迟电激动处植入左室导线行心脏再同步化治疗

目的探讨电生理标测冠状静脉窦(CS)分支最延迟电激动处植入左室导线行心脏再同步治疗(CRT)。方法 10例中重度心力衰竭患者,均满足NYHA心功能Ⅲ～Ⅳ级,左室射血分数(LVEF)<0.35且QRS波时限≥120 ms。CRT术中在可植入左室导线的CS分支内进行电生理标测,将标测的最延迟心室电激动处作为左室导线的植入部位,观察该方法的可行性及临床疗效。结果 10例中,扩张型心肌病7例,缺血性心脏病3例;7例为窦性心律,3例为心房颤动;9例ECG表现为左束支传导阻滞,1例为室内传导阻滞。对10例的28个可作为左室导线植入部位的CS分支进行了电生理标测,10例均成功将左室导线植入在标测的最延迟电激动处,该处局部电位较体表ECG的QRS波起始延迟116±28 ms。术后即刻QRS波时限为121±17 ms,比术前153±30 ms明显缩短,P<0.01。8例CRT术后随访时间超过3个月,均有CRT应答(8/8,100%),其中3例超应答(3/8,37.5%),另外1例缺血性心肌病患者CRT术后2个月死于急性前壁心肌梗死;8例CRT应答患者NYHA心功能分级、6 min步行距离、LVEF值、左室收缩末容积、二尖瓣返流速度均较术前明显改善(1.6±0.5级vs 3.3±0.5级;405±92 m vs 307±82m;0.42±0.06 vs 0.30±0.04;121±38 ml vs 153±44 ml;3.9±1.2 m/s vs 4.5±1.5 m/s,P均<0.01)。结论电生理标测指引CS分支最延迟电激动处植入左室导线的CRT方法可行且短期疗效明显。     

Safety and Feasibility of Coronary Sinus Left Ventricular Leads Extraction: A Preliminary Report

Background: transvenous positioning of the left ventricular (LV) lead in a branch of the coronary sinus (CS) is generally the preferred implantation technique in biventricular pacing. Very few data are reported about removal of LV pacing leads positioned in a CS branch. Aim of the study was to describe our experience with percutaneous extraction of LV pacing leads in order to evaluate feasibility and safety of this procedure.Methods: we enrolled 392 patients who underwent a biventricular pacing implant. The indication for catheter removal was considered in case of definite diagnosis of infection and in some cases of lead dislodgement or diaphragmatic stimulation. LV lead extraction was first attempted by manual traction; in case of failure a locking stylet or locking stylet plus radiofrequency could be used.Results: twelve of 392 patients implanted needed LV lead removal. The leads had been in place for 13.9 ± 11.7 months. Extraction was indicated in 5 of them for LV lead dislodgement or diaphragmatic stimulation, and in 7 patients for lead infection. In all cases manual traction succeeded to remove the LV lead. In 7 cases of infection, the right atrial and ventricular leads were removed. The mean total procedure time was 69 ± 22 min. No complications were observed.Conclusions: our study suggests that CS leads could be easily and safely removed without any complication, also when placed in a CS branch, at least for relatively young catheters.Dr. Giuseppe De Martino is currently a clinical consultant of St. Jude Europe and Guidant Italia srl.