Inadvertent Left Ventricular Pacing through the Pericardium

Inadvertent placement of a pacemaker lead in the left ventricle (LV) is a rare complication of pacing. We describe a case of inadvertent LV pacing where the ventricular lead traversed the mediastinum and accessed the heart through the posterior wall of the left atrium. Both transesophageal echo and venography were useful in understanding the course of the misplaced lead, which was removed percutaneously without complication.     

A Method for Permanent Transvenous Left Ventricular Pacing

LV-based pacing has recently been reported to be of benefit in patients with severe cardiac failure and left bundle branch block. LV permanent pacing has been reported using epicardial leads but the surgical mortality is excessive. A transvenous approach is now favored. In this regard, cannulation of the coronary sinus and of one of its tributaries using only the permanent electrode is feasible but technically challenging. We describe a "long guiding sheath" method using catheterization, and a long radiopaque and peelable sheath. Once the coronaiy sinus is cannulated with the electrophysiological catheter, the long sheath is advanced to the mid-part of the coronary sinus. The permanent pacing electrode is then placed through the sheath and into a tributary of the coronary sinus. This method has been attempted in 10 patients and was successful in 8, with an average lead insertion time of 21 ± 5.5 minutes and an average fluoroscopic time of 11 ± 5.5 minutes. In conclusion, although transvenous left ventricular pacing remains a challenge, the "long guiding sheath" approach appears to facilitate this procedure with both a high success rate and an acceptable procedure time.     

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.     

Ventricular Activation Onset-Triggered Left Ventricular Pacing:

Ventricular activation onset-triggered (VAOT) left ventricular pacing modalities synchronize left ventricular paced activation with existing intrinsic ventricular activation, in patients with complete LBBB and adequate rate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of VAOT pacing with one left ventricular pacing lead, during temporary pacing in the postoperative period following open heart surgery. VAOT pacing was studied in five patients with LBBB and two patients with previously implanted right ventricular pacemakers. The VAOT pacing system used was assembled by modifying the function of existing equipment and its programming is described in detail. Comparative ECGs are reported, documenting the changes in ventricular activation produced by VAOT pacing. Stability of surface ECG acquisition was found to be essential to the success of temporary VAOT pacing and inappropriate pacing due to ECG instability is described. Patients were studied at rest and none experienced congestive heart failure. In the comparison of cardiac output, with and without VAOT pacing, no significant differences were found in LBBB patients or those with right ventricular pacemakers. In the comparison of arterial pressure, with and without VAOT pacing, no significant differences were found in six patients, however, in one LBBB patient with intrinsic predominant ventricular trigeminy, VAOT pacing was observed to have an antiarrhythmic effect resulting in suppression of ventricular ectopy and stabilization of arterial pressure. All patients survived VAOT pacing and the postoperative period without complications requiring additional intervention or treatment. (PACE 2004; 27[Pt. I]:730–739)     

Endocardial Pacing in Infants and Children 15 Kg or Less in Weight: Medium-term Follow-Up

Twenty-four children 15 kg or less in weight (range 2.8–15 kg) underwent implantation of a permanent pacemaker using the transvenous technique of lead placement. During a follow-up period of 2 months to 6 years 1 month (median 3 years 6 months) eight children suffered complications, six of which necessitated reoperation. These included: lead fracture in two, infection in two, transient myocardml dysfunction in one, generator migration in one, premature battery depletion in one, and threshold rise in one. A loop of redundant ventricular lead positioned in the atrium at the time of implant is successfully unravelling in all children. One child died during the follow-up period of a pneumonia unrelated to her pacemaker. The other children are growing and developing normally and the cosmetic appearance has proved acceptable in all cases.     

Long-term Stability of Endocardial Left Ventricular Pacing Leads Placed via the Coronary Sinus

Background: Left ventricular endocardial pacing leads placed via the coronary sinus (CS) are increasingly implanted to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); however, the long-term stability of these leads is unknown. We sought to determine the implant success and long-term stability of CS leads in our single center experience.
Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent CRT via implantation of the CS lead between January 1999 and December 2005 were included. Pacing thresholds at implant and during long-term follow-up were reviewed and the rate of acute (within 24 hours of implant) and chronic (>24 hours) lead failure was determined.
Results: A total of 512 patients (mean age 68 ± 12 years; 409 [80%] male) underwent CRT device implantation and were included. The CS lead implantation was successful on the initial implantation in 487 patients (95%) and subsequently successful in six patients (24%) in whom initial attempts were unsuccessful. Acute lead failure occurred in 25 patients (5.1%) and was most commonly due to persistent extra-cardiac stimulation. The rate of chronic lead failure was 4% in the first year and remained stable during long-term follow-up. The CS lead pacing thresholds remained stable with only minimal increase (1.42 ± 0.85 V/0.42 ± 0.25 ms vs 1.51 ± 1.05 V/0.47 ± 0.29 ms; P = 0.04).
Conclusions: Placement of a left ventricular pacing lead via the CS is feasible and safe in the vast majority of patients. Once placed, the CS leads remain stable with excellent pacing thresholds over the longer term.     

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.     

Ventricular Thrombosis During Permanent Endocardial Pacing in a Pediatric Patient with Hemorrheological Disorders

Thrombosis in the right atrium or ventricle is a rare complication of permanent endocardial pacing in adults. To the best of our knowledge, this complication has not been previously reported at all in the pediatric age group. We report on a case of a 7-year-old boy who had large left ventricular thrombi that occurred during permanent endocardial electrical stimulation. Subsequent pulmonary emboli complicated congestive heart failure in this patient. As a diagnostic approach, echocardiography and pulmonary perfusion scintigraphy were used. We comment on possible causes of this serious complication and suggest hemorrheological and platelet activation studies in patients with permanent endocardial pacing.     

The Use of Active Fixation Electrodes for Permanent Endocardial Pacing Via a Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava

Two patients underwent permanent endocardial pacing for complete atrioventricular block. In each case a persistent left superior vena cava was either suspected or known to be present. An active fixation electrode was passed down the left superior vena cava and the tip positioned in the apex of the right ventricle. Stable ventricular pacing was achieved for the follow-up period of approximately six months. With the availability of such active fixation electrodes the presence of a persistent left superior vena cava no longer mandates insertion of an endocardial electrode via the right superior vena cava. when present, or implantation of an epicardial pacing system. (PACE, Vol. 5, March-April, 1982)     

Transarterial Permanent Pacing of the Left Ventricle

Clinical evaluation of a 64-year-old male patient with a permanent pacemaker showed a right bundle branch block in his ECG that led to the suspicion of catheter misplacement. A two-dimensional echocardiogram and bilateral venogram demonstrated that the pacemaker lead was not in the venous system and that its course was from the axillary artery to the left ventricle passing through the aortic valve. Thirty-three days after implant, replacement of the pacemaker lead through the venous system to stimulate the right ventricular endocardium was performed. At 7 month follow-up the patient has had no complication from his previous arterial pacemaker implantation.     

Feasibility Of Temporary Biventricular Pacing In Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Function After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Background and Methods: Biventricular pacing improves hemodynamics after weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with severely reduced left ventricular (LV) function undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We examined the feasibility of temporary biventricular pacing for 96 hours postoperatively. Unipolar epicardial wires were placed on the roof of the right atrium (RA), the right ventricular (RV) outflow tract, and the LV free lateral wall and connected to an external pacing device in 51 patients (mean LV ejection fraction 35 ± 4%). Pacing and sensing thresholds, lead survival and incidence of pacemaker dysfunction were determined.
Results: Atrial and RV pacing thresholds increased significantly by the 4th postoperative day, from 1.6 ± 0.2 to 2.5 ± 0.3 V at 0.5 ms (P = 0.03) at the RA, 1.4 ± 0.3 V to 2.7 ± 0.4 mV (P = 0.01) at the RV, and 1.9 ± 0.6 V to 2.9 ± 0.7 mV (P = 0.3) at the LV, while sensing thresholds decreased from 2.0 ± 0.2 to 1.7 ± 0.2 mV (P = 0.18) at the RA, 7.2 ± 0.8 to 5.1 ± 0.7 mV (P = 0.05) at the RV, and 9.4 ± 1.3 to 5.5 ± 1.1 mV (P = 0.02) at the LV. The cumulative overall incidence of lead failure was 24% by the 4th postoperative day, and was similar at the RV and LV. We observed no ventricular proarrhythmia due to pacing or temporary pacemaker malfunction.
Conclusions: Biventricular pacing after CABG using a standard external pacing system was feasible and safe.     

Permanent Ventricular Pacing Via the Great Cardiac Vein

Two cases of left ventricular pacing via the great cardiac vein are presented. A 64-year-old female with a mechanical prosthetic tricuspid valve and slow atrial fibrillation had a failed attempt at pacing from the middle cardiac vein. In a 58-year-old male with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy and brodycardia tachycardia svndrome. transvenous permanent pacing could not be achieved via the right ventricle or middle cardiac vein. In both cases, successful pacing via the great cardiac vein was achieved but with an elevated stimulation threshold. These cases illustrate an alternate transvenous route when difficulties occur using standard ventricular pacing sites.     

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)     

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.     

Lead Extraction Via the Femoral Artery of a Left Ventricular Pacing Lead Inserted in the Subclavian Artery

We describe the extraction of a pacing lead via the femoral artery 5 months after it was inadvertently introduced through the right subclavian artery and positioned in the left ventricle. The lead was dislocated from the myocardium by traction from the subpectoral area and subsequently removed with a retriever inserted through the femoral artery in order to minimize the risk of cerebral embolization and bleeding at the entry site. Bleeding was controlled at the subclavian artery entry site by temporary inflation of a balloon catheter inserted through the brachial artery, and at the insertion site of the retriever in the femoral artery with a closure device. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. I]:1544–1547)     

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.     

Amaurosis Fugax in a Patient with a Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacemaker

A transvenous left ventricular endocardial pacemaker catheter is a potential source of systemic arterial embolization. The case of a woman who presented with left-eye amaurosis fugax is reported. The patient had a history of contralateral carotid atherosclerosis; however, the digital subtraction angiography of the carotid arteries was not sufficiently abnormal to account for her present symptoms. The patient had a history of two myocardial infarctions and the tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome for which she was treated with a demand ventricular pacemaker. The chest x-ray and electrocardiogram suggested pacemaker catheter malposition. By M-mode and two-dimensional echocardiography, the catheter was shown to cross the atrial septum and the mitral valve to implant in the left ventricular endocardium. The approach to diagnosis and therapy that led to surgical removal of the pacing catheter is presented. The causes of the electrocardiographic right bundle branch block pattern in cardiac pacing and the usefulness of echocardiography in evaluating pacing catheters are discussed.     

Inadvertent But Asymptomatic Right Atrial Perforation with Epicardial Pacing in a Neonate: A Rare Complication of Temporary Transvenous Cardiac Pacing

We report a case of an asymptomatic right atrial perforation due to temporary cardiac pacing in a neonate.     

Variability of Left Atrial Bloodflow Predicts Intolerance of Ventricular Demand Pacing and May Cause Pacemaker Syndrome

Variability of left and right atrial and left ventncular bloodflow was studied using transthoracic and transesophageal Doppler echocardiography and related to pacemaker mode preference during everyday activity. Bloodflow variability was less at all sites during dual chamber pacing compared to single chamber pacing. However, in patients suffering from pacemaker syndrome and whom prefer DDDR pacing, significantly increased variability of left atrial antegrade (but not retrograde) bloodflow during VVIR pacing compared to DDDR pacing was noted, which was not evident in patients tolerating VVIR mode pacing. This effect was not detected at any other site and suggests that adverse left atrial hemodynamics may result in intolerence to VVI/R mode pacing and might cause pacemaker syndrome.