Characterization of human coronary sinus valves by direct visualization during biventricular pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND: The precise reasons for failure to cannulate the coronary sinus during biventricular device implantation are unknown. Visualization of the coronary sinus ostium during electrophysiology procedures may enhance understanding of how unusual anatomy can affect successful cannulation of the coronary sinus. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the morphology of valves at the coronary sinus ostium (CSO) visualized directly with an illuminated fiberoptic endoscope during implantation of biventricular devices. METHODS: The coronary sinus anatomy of one hundred consecutive patients undergoing implantation of biventricular devices was investigated using a fiberoptic endocardial visualization catheter (EVC). RESULTS: The CSO was clearly visualized in 98 patients using the EVC. A Thebesian valve was seen in 54% of these. Almost all Thebesian valves were positioned at the inferior (61%) or posterior (33%) aspect of the CSO. Only six patients had Thebesian valves that covered more than 70% of the CSO, but all were successfully implanted with a transvenous left ventricular pacing lead after cannulating the coronary sinus under direct visualization. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of patients undergoing biventricular device implantation have identifiable Thebesian valves. Even valves covering the majority of the ostial area may be traversed using direct visualization and modern catheterization techniques.     

Beyond coronary sinus angiography: the value of coronary arteriography and identification of the pericardiophrenic vein during left ventricular lead placement

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to define the role coronary arteriography (venous phase) for improving the success of left ventricular (LV) lead implantation and to define the value of identifying the pericardiophrenic vein for optimal LV lead placement in biventricular (bi-v) device implantation. METHODS: Seventy-seven patients underwent bi-v device implantation between July 2002 and October 2003. If the coronary sinus (CS) could not be accessed, then left coronary arteriography was performed during the same procedure. CS access was guided by venous phase images of the coronary arteriogram. The pericardiophrenic vein was identified by selective cannulation or direct visualization. Patients with Cr > 1.5 had gadolinium used as the contrast agent. RESULTS: Seventy-five successful implants were performed (97%). In seven patients (9%) repeated attempts at retrograde cannulation of the CS failed (attempt time 130 +/- 20 minute, mean +/- SD). In these patients, coronary arteriography helped define the location of the CS, which was subsequently successfully cannulated. In six patients the pericardiophrenic vein was identified either during occlusion venography of the CS (postthoracotomy, veno-venous collaterals, n = 2) or during selective cannulation of the pericardiophrenic vein (using a DAIG Csl catheter, n = 4). The vein was directly visualized in three patients who underwent surgical LV lead implantation. LV leads in all these cases were implanted in areas not overlying the preidentified pericardiophrenic vein. During follow-up, none of these patients had evidence of phrenic nerve stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative left coronary arteriography increases the success of CS cannulation. Identification of the pericardiophrenic vein is a useful method to avoid phrenic nerve stimulation.     

Simple access to the coronary venous system for left ventricular pacing

Implantation of the LV lead for biventricular pacing can be challenging, time consuming, and often requires extensive fluoroscopy time. A conventional diagnostic 5 Fr left Amplatz catheter was used to cannulate the coronary sinus in 15 consecutive patients undergoing implantation of a biventricular pacemaker. When the coronary sinus was cannulated, the proximal end of the Amplatz catheter was cut and the coronary sinus sheath was passed over the Amplatz catheter that was then removed. Coronary sinus cannulation was achieved in all 15 patients with a mean fluoroscopy time of 3.34 +/- 1.9 minutes. Subsequent implantation of a biventricular pacemaker was successful and free of complications in all the 15 patients.     

Left ventricular pacing lead positioning in the target vein of the coronary sinus: description of a challenging case

The optimal left ventricular pacing location for cardiac resynchronization therapy should be individualized according to the site of maximal mechanical delay. However, the presence of vein stenosis or kinking in coronary sinus (CS) anatomy could hamper lead implantation in the target vessel. We describe the case of a patient with dilated cardiomyopathy and a dual-chamber pacemaker referred for upgrading to a biventricular device owing to New York Heart Association III heart failure symptoms. Tissue Doppler analysis before implantation showed that the area of maximum activation delay was located in the posterolateral region of the left ventricle. Insertion of the lead into a posterolateral vein of the CS by means of the standard over-the-wire approach was unsuccessful due to the presence of a stenosis at the ostium of the vein. Lead placement in an anterior vein of the CS was unsatisfactory owing to a poor local delay from QRS onset. After balloon vein angioplasty, the pacing lead passed through the stenotic tract at the ostium of the target vein and was successfully positioned in the posterolateral region. Three months after pacemaker implantation, echocardiography showed an important reduction in the indexes of both inter- and intraventricular asynchrony and a significant left ventricular reverse remodeling     

Left ventricular lead performance in cardiac resynchronization therapy: impact of lead localization and complications

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using left ventricular (LV) pacing from the coronary sinus tributary is increasingly and frequently used in patients with severe congestive heart failure. The present study investigates LV lead performance in different anatomic locations. METHODS: The LV pacing site was defined by bi-plane fluoroscopy. In the left anterior oblique view, the coronary sinus is encircling the mitral ring with the tributaries radiating out like the hands of a watch. Using this clockwise method, Group A had an LV pacing site before 3 o'clock and Group B at or after 3 o'clock. In right anterior oblique view, the LV was divided into three segments: basal, mid-ventricular, and apical. RESULTS: LV lead implantation was successful in all of 120 consecutive patients. Mean follow-up was 16.7 months. Implantation time decreased from mean 190 to 80 minutes during the period (P = 0.01). The mean LV lead stimulation threshold increased initially and stabilized afterwards. The threshold measured at last follow-up was higher than at implantation (2.3 vs 2.7 microJ, P = 0.04). Useful venograms were obtained in 94 patients. No significant difference in thresholds was observed between Groups A and B. Phrenic nerve stimulation was most commonly seen in Group B (8/70 vs 1/24, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implantation of an LV lead for CRT is possible in patients with congestive heart failure and associated with an acceptable low complication rate. LV lead implantation is associated with a learning curve. At mid-term follow-up, LV lead performance is stable and unrelated to the LV implantation site.     

Angiographic Anatomy of the Coronary Sinus and Its Tributaries

Permanent left ventricular pacing has been shown to imporve the hemodynamic and clinical status of patients with severe heart failure. To pace the left ventricle, the electrode is implanted in tributaries of the coronary sinus (CS). However, the anatomy of cardiac veins with this purpose in mind has not been described in detail. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients admitted for coronary angiography had a simultaneous coronary venography performed after the injection of 8 to 10 mL of contrast material into the left coronary artery. Cardiac veins were analyzed in antero-posterior, left anterior oblique 60±, and right anterior oblique 30± views by three different observers. The number, dimension, angulation, and position of the coronary sinus and of its tributaries were studied. Results: Two veins are consistently present: the middle cardiac vein (mean diameter 2.62 ± 1.26 mm) and the great cardiac vein (mean diameter 3.55 ± 1.24 mm). The left posterior vein(s) (LPV) (mean diameter 2.25 ± 1.2 mm) is (are) variable in number (ranging from 0 to 3), size, and angulation. The absence of LPV limits the ability to pace the left ventricle endovenously. The diameter of the vein (< 2 mm) and its angulation may also complicate the insertion of the lead. Conclusion: Angiographic analysis of dimensions, tortuosity, number, and angulation of venous tributaries of the CS seems to allow the insertion of commercially available pacing leads in approximately 85% of cases. An increase in this percentage hinges on the development of new, dedicated leads.     

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.     

Interventional approach to CRT in a patient with drainage of the superior vena cava into the coronary sinus

A persistent left superior vena cava markedly increases the size of the coronary sinus (CS), which can increase the difficulty of left ventricular (LV) lead placement in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We present a case where the entire superior vena cava drains into the coronary sinus, creating a massive CS. We also describe an interventional approach to LV lead implantation utilizing a combination of delivery systems from different vendors.     

Use of Radiofrequency Perforation for Lead Placement in Biventricular or Conventional Endocardial Pacing after Mustard or Senning Operations for D-Transposition of the Great Arteries

Background: Endocardial pacemaker lead placement can be challenging after Mustard and Senning operations for transposition of the great arteries (D-TGA), if there is atresia of the systemic venous pathways and because the coronary sinus cannot be used for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Radiofrequency (RF)-assisted perforation techniques have been used in congenital heart disease but have not been reported for use in pacemaker implantation.
Methods and Results: We describe RF perforation of an atretic superior systemic venous pathway and systemic venous baffles in three patients after Senning and Mustard operations to implant endocardial pacing systems to achieve conventional or biventricular pacing.
Conclusions: RF-energy-assisted perforation is feasible and effective tool to facilitate endocardial lead placement during dual-chamber and biventricular pacemaker implantation in patients with Mustard or Senning operations for D-TGA.     

Long-Term Follow-Up of Biventricular Pacing Using a Totally Endocardial Approach in Patients with End-Stage Cardiac Failure

Background: Besides standard left ventricular (LV) stimulation via the coronary sinus, a transseptal approach allows left ventricular endocardial stimulation. We report our long-term observations with biventricular stimulation, using a strictly endocardial system for patients presenting with severe congestive heart failure .
Methods: Six patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (mean age = 60 ± 9.6 years, women) in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III (n = 5) or IV, despite optimal drug therapy, and a mean LV ejection fraction of 24 ± 3%, underwent implantation of biventricular stimulation systems between April 1998 and March 1999. All presented with left bundle branch block and an increased LV end-diastolic diameter (mean = 66 ± 5 mm). In all patients, a bipolar pacing lead was implanted in the lateral LV wall using a direct transseptal approach. After implantation, all patients received oral anticoagulation.
Results: QRS duration decreased from 184 ± 22 ms to 108 ± 11 ms. NYHA functional class decreased to II in all patients within 1 month. Over a 85 ± 5 month follow-up, two patients underwent cardiac transplantation, 2 and 4 years after device implantation, respectively; two patients died of end-stage heart failure 4 years after system implantation; and two patients were alive in functional class II. One patient, who experienced syncope due to fast ventricular, underwent implantation of an ICD. One transient ischemic attack occurred in a patient whose anticoagulation was temporarily interrupted .
Conclusions: Long-term endocardial biventricular stimulation via a transseptal approach was safe and effective in this small population. This approach needs to be further compared with conventional epicardial pacing via the coronary sinus     

Biventricular Pacing Using Two Pacemakers and the Triggered VVT Mode

O'COCHLAIN, B., et al. : Biventricular Pacing Using Two Pacemakers and the Triggered VVT Mode. Pacemaker dependent patients exhibit interventricular conduction delay due to right ventricular lead placement. The addition of a transvenous coronary sinus lead for biventricular pacing has been shown to be effective. Venous stenosis and thrombosis postpacemaker implantation can occur in up to 35% of patients. This report describes a patient with a preexisting left-sided dual chamber pacemaker and chronic left subclavian vein occlusion that was upgraded to a biventricular system by placing a coronary sinus lead and single chamber ventricular triggered pacemaker on the opposite side.     

Contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary MRA at 3.0T for the evaluation of cardiac venous anatomy

This study was designed to evaluate the value of contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary MRA (CMRA) at 3.0T in depicting the cardiac venous anatomy. In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), left ventricular (LV) pacing is achieved by positioning the LV lead in one of the tributaries of the coronary sinus (CS). Pre-implantation knowledge of the venous anatomy may help determine whether transvenous LV lead placement for CRT is feasible. Images of 51 subjects undergoing contrast-enhanced whole-heart CMRA at 3.0T were retrospectively analyzed. Data acquisition was performed using electrocardiography-triggered, navigator-gated, inversion-recovery prepared, segmented gradient-echo sequence. A 32-element cardiac coil was used for data acquisition. The visibility of the cardiac veins was graded visually using a 4-point scale (1: poor-4: excellent). The paired Student t test was used to evaluate differences in diameters of the ostium of the CS in anteroposterior and superoinferior direction. The cardiac veins were finally evaluated in 48 subjects with three anatomic variations. The diameter of the CS ostium in the superoinferior direction (1.13?±?0.26?cm) was larger than in the anteroposterior direction (0.82?±?0.19?cm) (P?相似文献   

Coronary Sinus Aneurysm and Left Ventricular‐Coronary Sinus Fistula. Implantation of CRT Device

We describe a 72‐year‐old man referred for implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy device who had previously undergone repeated operations to replace the mitral valve. Retrograde venography of the coronary sinus (CS) to implant the left ventricular (LV) pacing lead revealed aneurysmal dilatation of the CS with LV‐CS fistula that hindered—but did not prevent—complete implantation of the system. (PACE 2013; 36:e38–e40)     

Permanent Left Ventricular Pacing With Transvenous Leads Inserted Into The Coronary Veins

This paper describes a preliminary experiment - conducted jointly by 2 centers - of permanent left ventricular pacing using leads inserted by the transvenous route and through the coronary sinus into the cardiac veins of the left ventricle free wall. The aim was to obtain permanent biventricular pacing in a totally endocavitary configuration in pattents with severe LV dysfunction and drug-refractory heart failure. Two types of leads were used: nonspecific unipolar leads at the beginning of the experiment, followed by leads specifically designed to be used in the coronary sinus in a second step. The electrode could be fitted in an adequate location in 35 of the 47 patients (75.4%), with a 1.15±0.7 V acute pactng threshold and 11.8±5.7 mV R wave amplitude. The success rate was significantly higher with the specific electrodes (81.8% vs 53,3%, p < 0.001). The pacing and sensing thresholds upon implantation were not influenced by the type of lead or by the localization of the cardiac vein that was catheterized (great cardiac vein, lateral vein, postero-lateral or posterior vein, mid cardiac vein). In contrast, the pacing threshold was significantly lower (0.8 ± 0.2 vs L8 ± 0.8 V; p = 0.002) and the R wave amplitude tended to be greater (13.1 ± 4.5 mV vs 9.3 ± 6.5 mV; p = 0.07) when the tip electrode could be inserted distally into the vein, by comparison with a proximal site near the ostium. At the end of follow-up (10.2 ± 8.7 months), 34 out of the 35 leads were still fully functional, with a chronic pacing threshold of 1.8 ± 0.7 V and a R wave amplitude of 10.7 ± 6 mV. To conclude, permanent LV pacing via the transvenous route is possible in most patients, with excellent safety and long-term results.     

Transseptal Left Ventricular Lead Placement Using Snare Technique

Background: Coronary sinus (CS) lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy has a failure rate of ～5–10%. Here we describe a way of implanting an endocardial left ventricular (LV) lead via a transseptal puncture (TSP), using a GooseNeck snare and active fixation lead. Methods: Three male patients (67–83 years) with failed or extracted epicardial LV leads implanted via the CS had an endocardial LV lead implanted. TSP was performed via a femoral vein. The active fixation pacing lead was advanced to the right atrium from a subclavian vein. A GooseNeck snare was passed via the TSP sheath and used to grasp the tip of the pacing lead. The sheath, GooseNeck snare, and pacing lead tip were then passed to the left atrium by sliding the system up the TSP guidewire and across the interatrial septum before deflecting the lead to permit implantation in the left ventricle. Results: Successful implantation was performed in all patients with an LV implant time of 25–55 minutes. Conclusion: The use of a GooseNeck snare via a deflectable transseptal sheath represents a reliable alternative method for endocardial LV lead placement in patients with failed CS LV lead implantation. (PACE 2012; 35:1248–1252)     

The acute hemodynamic response to LV pacing within individual branches of the coronary sinus using a quadripolar lead

Background: It is not clear whether there is a large difference in acute hemodynamic response (AHR) to left ventricle (LV) pacing in different regions of the same coronary sinus (CS) vein. Using the four electrodes available on a Quartet LV lead, we evaluated the AHR to pacing within individual branches of the CS. Methods: An acute hemodynamic study was attempted in 20 patients. In each patient, we assessed AHR in a number of CS veins and along a significant proportion of each CS branch using three different bipolar configurations. We compared the AHR achieved when pacing using each different vector and also the highest AHR achieved in any position within the same patient with the lowest achieved in that patient. Results : Sixty‐four different CS positions in 19 patients were successfully assessed. No significant difference in AHR was found overall between the three vectors tested. The mean percentage difference in AHR between the CS branch vectors with the lowest and highest dP/dt_max was +6.5 ± 5.4% (P < 0.001). A much larger difference of +16.9 ± 6.1% (P < 0.001) was seen when comparing the highest and lowest AHR achieved using any vector in any position within the same patient. Conclusion: A small difference in AHR is seen when pacing within the same branch of the CS compared to pacing in different branches in the same patient. This suggests that although the site of LV lead placement is important, the position within a CS branch is less important than choosing the right vein. (PACE 2012; 35:196–203)     

Implantation of a biventricular pacing system in a patient with a coronary sinus not communicating with the right atrium

Intubation of the coronary sinus failed during implantation of a biventricular pacing system. An angiogram of the left coronary artery showed in the venous phase a coronary sinus not communicating with the right atrium. The coronary sinus was draining into a persistent left superior vena cava communicating with the left subclavian vein. The coronary sinus lead was successfully implanted through the persistent left superior vena cava, whereas the atrial and ventricular leads were implanted through the right superior vena cava in a conventional way.     

Cardiac resynchronization after left ventricular lead extraction: usefulness of angioplasty in coronary sinus stenosis

A 68-year-old man, 54 months after having been implanted with a biventricular device, underwent successful extraction of the malfunctioning left ventricular (LV) lead using mechanical dilation. During LV lead reimplantation, venography documented stenosis of the coronary sinus (CS). To overcome the obstacle, balloon angioplasty was performed and a LV lead was then inserted into a lateral tributary of the CS. The procedure was complicated by local infection and, after 2 months, removal of the entire unit became necessary. During controlateral device implantation, a second angioplasty was carried before insertion of the new LV lead because, in the meantime, restenosis had developed in the CS.     

Implantation of a biventricular pacing system in a patient with a persistent left superior vena cava

The presence of a persistent left superior vena cava was encountered in a 64-year-old man undergoing implantation of a biventricular pacing system. Leads with active fixation were positioned in the right atrium and right ventricle, through the persistent left superior vena cava and the proximal segment of the coronary sinus. For left ventricular pacing, a standard bipolar lead was positioned directly in the posterior branch of the coronary sinus without the use of special guiding catheters.     

Inappropriate shock delivery due to ventricular double detection with a biventricular pacing implantable cardioverter defibrillator

This report describes a patient with advanced heart failure, pronounced intraventricular conduction delay, and ventricular tachycardias who underwent implantation of a multisite pacing ICD. Pacing leads were placed in the right atrium, right ventricular apex, and to the left ventricular posterior wall via a coronary sinus vein. The system proved to have correct sensing and pacing function in an atrial synchronized biventricular pacing mode and an appropriate detection of ventricular fibrillation. However, 1 month after implantation the patient received an inappropriate shock delivery due to double detection of ventricular premature beats. The inherent detection problem of dual ventricular sensing is discussed.