经冠状动脉造影顺行心脏静脉显影在左心室导线植入中的应用

目的左心室导线植入是决定心脏再同步治疗（CRT）手术成败和治疗效果的关键环节。应用经冠状动脉造影顺行心脏静脉显影方法，术前了解心脏静脉解剖特点，指导左心室导线植入。方法38例心力衰竭患者于CRT手术前先行冠状动脉造影，通过延长曝光时间，利用心脏静脉回流相显示心脏静脉系统。采用左锁骨下静脉穿刺，左心室导线置于心脏侧静脉或侧后静脉。结果通过顺行心脏静脉显影能清晰显示心脏静脉系统，包括冠状静脉窦、心大静脉、心中静脉、心脏侧静脉及侧后静脉。其中5例患者心脏侧静脉或侧后静脉细小或缺如，3例心脏侧后静脉或侧静脉与心中静脉夹角小于90。。左心室导线能顺利植入心脏侧静脉或侧后静脉33例。术中，4例改变导线位置至心大静脉，l例至右心室流出道。4例发生并发症．其中心脏静脉夹层3例，心脏静脉穿孔1例，均无严重后果。结论在CRT手术前，先通过冠状动脉造影顺行心脏静脉显像，充分了解心脏静脉系统的解剖特点，对左心室导线的放置颇有裨益。     

Early human experience with use of a deflectable fiberoptic endocardial visualization catheter to facilitate coronary sinus cannulation

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation techniques, a significant minority of CRT attempts are unsuccessful. Inability to cannulate the coronary sinus (CS) because of difficult anatomy is a major reason for unsuccessful CRT implantation. Direct visualization of intracardiac structures during the implant may facilitate access into the CS. The present study describes CRT implantation with the aid of an endocardial visualization catheter (EVC). METHODS: Fifty-eight consecutive patients (mean age 72 +/- 12 years; ejection fraction 26.2% +/- 7.0%; New York Heart Association [NYHA] class 2.9) underwent CRT implantation using a steerable fiberoptic EVC (Acumen Medical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). RESULTS: The EVC was able to visualize the CS ostium in all cases. The CS was successfully cannulated in 57 (98.3%) of 58 patients. The time from vascular access to CS visualization was 6 +/- 5 minutes, and the total time to CS access was 8 +/- 6 minutes. Successful left ventricle (LV) lead implantation was accomplished in 55 (94.8%) of 58 patients. Three patients who had a previous history of failed LV lead implantation were successfully implanted using the EVC. CONCLUSION: Fiberoptic imaging of intracardiac structures during CRT implantation may be performed rapidly in a wide range of patients with an EVC. The ability to visualize right atrial anatomy may aid CS access and LV lead implantation.     

Left ventricular lead implantation in an unusual anatomy of the proximal coronary sinus

A 62-year-old man with Class III heart failure and left bundle branch block underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy. Because prior implantation attempts from the left side were unsuccessful, the right side approach was attempted. However, it was still impossible to advance the pre-shaped sheaths into the distal coronary sinus (CS) because the CS was abnormal with a posterior vertical take off followed by a sharp sigmoid curve before the AV groove. Ultimately, a straight sheath was adjusted to fit the sigmoid curve with the guidance of an electrophysiologic catheter and a left ventricular lead was then passed into the anterolateral vein. There was no financial support for this study.     

Successful coronary sinus lead placement after stenting of coronary vein stenosis.

In this paper, we describe a 62-year-old man with ischemic cardiomyopathy who underwent biventricular pacing and left ventricular lead could be implanted after stenting of a coronary vein stenosis.     

Cardiac venous injuries: Procedural profiles and outcomes during left ventricular lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy

1. Download : Download high-res image (257KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: Dire need for targeted left ventricular lead placement and optimal device programming

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) effected via biventricular pacing has been established as prime therapy for heart failure patients of New York Heart Association functional class II, III and ambulatory IV, reduced left ventricular (LV) function, and a widened QRS complex. CRT has been shown to improve symptoms, LV function, hospitalization rates, and survival. In order to maximize the benefit from CRT and reduce the number of non-responders, consideration should be given to target the optimal site for LV lead implantation away from myocardial scar and close to the latest LV site activation; and also to appropriately program the device paying particular attention to optimal atrioventricular and interventricular intervals. We herein review current data related to both optimal LV lead placement and device programming and their effects on CRT clinical outcomes.     

冠状静脉球囊扩张在左室电极植入中的应用(附三例报道)

目的观察冠状静脉球囊扩张在左室电极植入中的作用。方法 3例冠状静脉狭窄患者,在植入左室电极时行冠状静脉球囊扩张,随访其效果及安全性。结果 2例使用2.5 mm的顺应性球囊进行扩张,1例使用3.0mm的顺应性球囊进行扩张,均获得成功,且无并发症出现。结论冠状静脉球囊扩张是一种有效、安全的手段,扩张狭窄的冠状静脉,可使左室电极植入到理想的靶血管中。     

动态容积CT对心力衰竭患者左心室静脉系统的评价

目的 应用320排动态容积CT对心力衰竭患者的左心室静脉系统进行评价,以指导心脏再同步治疗（CRT）中左心室电极的置入.方法 对在我院应用320排动态容积CT行冠状动脉检查的70例心衰患者,行冠状静脉系统重建.其中男性33例,女性37例,平均年龄（58.4±11.5）岁.重点对左室侧静脉及左室后侧静脉进行测量及分析.结果 60例患者可清晰显示左室侧静脉和（或）左室后侧静脉,其中54例患者可观察到心侧静脉,55例患者观察到心后侧静脉.对比性别发现,男性心侧静脉与CS开口距离、可显示最大长度大于女性（P＜0.05）,男性心后侧静脉开口直径、血管弯曲度大于女性（P＜0.05）;女性心侧静脉血管最大弯曲度大于男性（P＜0.05）,女性心侧、心后侧静脉与心大静脉右房侧或CS夹角大于男性（P＜0.05）.结论 应用动态容积CT可以清晰地重建心衰患者左心静脉系统,为CRT提供术前指导.     

Coronary sinus atresia and persistent left superior vena cava with the presence of thrombus complicating implantation of a left ventricular pacing lead.

A 68-year-old male with heart failure and a suitable candidate for resynchronization therapy was referred to our hospital because of a failed coronary sinus (CS) lead implant. Catheterization of the CS initially also failed in our department but a left coronary angiogram revealed atresia of the CS and drainage of the coronary venous system via a persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC). Implantation of a CS lead through the PLSVC could be accomplished after a selective angiogram, even in spite of the presence of a large thrombus at the junction of PLSVC and CS.     

无鞘置入冠状静脉窦-左心室电极导线在心脏再同步治疗中的应用

慢性心力衰竭（心衰）是心内科治疗学上的难题,具有较高的患病率和病死率。我国35～74岁人群中约有心衰患者400万人,其5年病死率可达30％～50％。与此同时,因心衰引起的医疗花费相当巨大。尽管药物治疗取得很大进展,     

Using multiple buddy wires to facilitate left ventricular lead advancement in cardiac resynchronization therapy

Left ventricular lead positioning is always the critical step in cardiac resynchronization therapy because of the complex anatomy of coronary sinus branches. We describe the case of a 46-year-old man with dilated cardiomyopathy and complete left bundle branch block presenting with heart failure. The placing of the left ventricular lead into the posterolateral branch was hampered by an angulated portion at the proximal branch even with the assistance of anchor wire technique and one to two additional parallel wires’ support. The use of three buddy wires facilitated the advancement of the left ventricular lead.     

经皮冠状动脉成形术导丝在经冠状窦左室电极安置中的应用

目的研究和总结经皮冠状动脉成形术(PTCA)导丝在心脏再同步化治疗(CRT/CRT-D)患者左室起搏电极导线安置中的应用价值和技巧。方法 32例患者,心功能(NYHA分级)Ⅲ～Ⅳ级。左室射血分数0.31±0.05(0.23～0.35),左室舒张末期内径70±10(60～78)mm。根据冠状静脉窦及心脏静脉造影结果选择左室起搏电极的靶静脉,选用左室后静脉18例,心侧静脉14例。根据心脏静脉走行选择PTCA导丝(BMW导丝19例,ATW导丝8例。采用双导丝技术2例)或直接使用左室起搏电极的配套导丝(3例)将左室起搏电极送至靶静脉。结果左室起搏电极一次植入成功31例,另1例首次植入失败,第2次手术获得成功。左室电极首次植入成功率为97%。左室起搏阈值1.2±0.5V,阻抗947±231Ω,R波振幅10±3mV。结论应用PTCA导丝,并借鉴PTCA的一些操作技巧,可大幅提高经冠状窦左室起搏电极的植入成功率。     

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。     

Left ventricular pacing site in cardiac resynchronization therapy: clinical follow-up and predictors of failed lateral implant

The effects of the left ventricular (LV) pacing site on the clinical results of resynchronization therapy (CRT) are not well characterized. The aim of this study was to define the effect of LV lead location on clinical response and LV remodelling, and to identify predictors of failure to implant the LV lead in a lateral location. One hundred and seventy two consecutive patients were evaluated at baseline and 6 months after CRT. In 128 patients, the LV lead was implanted in the lateral region (Group 1), while 44 received an anterior implant due to anatomical or electrical factors (Group 2). Group 1 was associated with a significantly better functional outcome assessed both by NYHA class (p<0.001) and by the six-minute-walk test (p=0.01) compared with group 2. LV ejection fraction and volumes, and inter- and intraventricular dyssynchrony only improved significantly (p<0.01) in group 1. The only independent predictor of a failed lateral implant was the presence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy (OR 3.29, 95% CI 2.2-13.7; p=0.02). In conclusion, a lateral lead location results in a better functional outcome and greater reverse LV remodelling compared with anterior locations. The presence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy is a risk factor for a failed lateral LV implant.     

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.     

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: predictive factors of unsuccessful left ventricular lead implant.

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an established therapy for advanced heart failure. However, coronary sinus access and pacing is not achieved in about 5-10% of patients. The aim of this study was to identify predictive factors for failure of left ventricular (LV) lead transvenous implant. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated 212 consecutive patients who received a cardiac resynchronization system. In 26 patients (12.3%), the attempt to pace the LV was unsuccessful. At univariate analysis, in patients with an unsuccessful implant a higher proportion of permanent atrial fibrillation (AF), valvular heart disease, and previous heart surgery were observed. Anteroposterior, longitudinal, and transversal left atrium diameters (LAD) were also larger among patients with an unsuccessful implant. The anteroposterior LAD (APLAD) with an optimal value to predict implant failure was 48.5 mm. At logistic regression analysis, the presence of permanent AF and APLAD were independent predictors of failed implant (OR 7.7, 95% CI 2.5-23.9, P=0.002 and OR 11.7, 95% CI 3.1-37.6, P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The presence of permanent AF and APLAD are factors that predict unsuccessful pacing from the LV.