经静脉途径拔除起搏电极导线的影响因素

目的探讨永久起搏器和埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)电极导线经静脉途径拔除的影响因素。方法对80例永久起搏器或ICD顽固性感染患者的157根电极导线进行拔除,先采用经上腔静脉途径拔除,未成功的换经下腔静脉途径拔除。分析电极置入时间长短、电极类型、患者年龄对拔除成功率的影响。结果拔除心房电极导线63根,右室电极导线75根,左室电极导线9根,ICD电极导线10根。拔除成功率100%。置入1年内、1～5年、5～10年、以及10年以上的电极导线经上腔静脉途径拔除的成功率分别为100%、86.4%、76.2%以及43.5%。不同电极类型及不同年龄患者经上腔静脉途径拔除电极导线的成功率无差异。结论经上腔静脉途径拔除永久起搏器或ICD电极导线的成功率较高,且不受电极类型及患者年龄影响,但随着电极置入时间的延长,其成功率降低。     

经静脉拔除114根永久性起搏电极导线

报道经静脉除 114根永久性起搏电极导线的结果。采用血管内反推力牵引技术和标准化器械 ,经上腔和 /或下腔静脉对 75例患者的 114根电极导线进行拔除。拔除指征为起搏系统顽固性感染 (97.3% )和电极导线断裂并脱入心腔 (2 .7% )。结果 :电极导线置入时间 5 .7± 5 .4 (0 .5～ 2 1)年 ,心房和心室电极导线分别为 35根和 78根。完全拔除电极导线 94根 (82 .4 % ) ,部分拔除 15根 (13.1% ) ,其余 5根拔除失败。术中一例因右心耳撕裂发生急性心包压塞。完全或部分拔除电极导线后 ,患者的感染症状被完全控制。结论 :经静脉拔除电极导线具有较高的成功率和安全性 ,是根治起搏器置入术后顽固性感染的有效方法。     

经下腔静脉途径拔除起搏导线的初步体会

目的 介绍应用血管内反推力技术经下腔静脉途径拔除起搏导线的初步临床体会。方法 对１８例患者的２８根导线应用血管内反推力牵引技术拔除导线,其中１６例（２５根导线）首选经上腔静脉途径,失败后改用经下腔静脉途径;２例（３根导线）直接用经下腔静脉途径拔除。结果 １６例患者的２５根导线,经上腔静脉途径完全拔除２２根（８８％）,３根经此途径拔除失败后改用下腔静脉途径,其中２根完全拔除。２例患者的３根导线直接先     

血管内反推力牵引术拔除感染性起搏电极导管

应用血管内反推力牵引术，经上腔静脉途径对９例病人的１４根感染性起搏电极导管进行拔除。１０根（７１．４％）电极导管被完全拔除，不完全拔除２根（１４．３％）。拔除失败的２根（１例）起搏电极导管经外科开胸术取出。平均随访９个月，感染被控制。提示血管内反推力牵引术是拔除感染性起搏电极导管和治疗起搏器植入术后顽固性感染的有效方法。     

单中心应用抓捕器Snare拔除电极导线的临床经验

目的探讨经下腔途径应用抓捕器Snare拔除电极导线的安全性、有效性。方法回顾性分析2017年1月至2018年1月就诊于北京大学人民医院,应用snare拔除电极导线患者的临床资料。结果 54例患者应用下腔装置snare拔除电极导线,年龄(68±13.3)岁,其中男性44例(81.5%),共拔除电极导线110根,其中心房电极45根(40.9%),右室电极57根(51.8%),除颤电极2根(1.8%),左室电极6根(5.5%)。平均植入年限9(2～27)年。其拔除原因分别为囊袋感染44例(81.5%),菌血症5例(9.3%),感染性心内膜炎3例(5.5%),电极故障2例(3.7%)。应用snare拔除电极导线的手术完全成功率为94.4%,临床成功率为100%。无一例发生死亡及需外科干预的主要并发症。结论下腔装置Snare拔除电极导线安全、有效。     

经静脉途径拔除起搏电极导线36例临床分析

目的 分析和总结心脏植入型电子器械患者经静脉途径拔除起搏电极导线的诊治情况。方法 回顾性分析2014年1月至2020年12月于本院行起搏电极拔除术患者的临床资料。结果 共36例行电极拔除术的患者,其中起搏系统感染患者29例,电极故障6例,血栓形成1例。共拔除电极导线69根(心房电极27根,右室电极33根,左室电极4根,埋藏式心脏转复除颤器电极5根。所有电极的平均植入时间为(45±46)个月。电极拔除成功率100%(均为完全拔除);其中10根(14.5%)直接拔除,32根(46.4%)使用锁定钢丝拔除,12根(17.4%)应用锁定钢丝联合扩张鞘拔除,12根(17.4%)应用锁定钢丝联合evolution机械鞘拔除,3根(4.3%)应用Snare下腔回收装置拔除。1例在置入临时起搏电极时因电极穿孔致心脏压塞,1例术中发生重度三尖瓣返流。结论 起搏系统感染是拔除电极的主要原因,经静脉途径拔除起搏电极导线具有较高的成功率。     

经静脉途径拔除植入心律起搏装置导线25例临床体会

目的:回顾性分析和总结经静脉途径拔除植入心律起搏装置(CIED)导线的方法和体会。方法:25例CIED患者(导线断裂3例、感染22例)的47根导线经静脉途径成功拔除,其中6例导线徒手拔除,15例应用锁定钢丝和扩张鞘拔除,1例运用Evolution机械鞘拔除,3例经下腔静脉途径拔除;22例患者于对侧植入新的心律起博装置,2例患者无植入新的起搏装置指证,1例患者因感染性心内膜炎积极治疗无效死亡。结果:所有导线均完全拔除,术中术后均未发生严重并发症。结论:经静脉途径拔除CIED导线是根治心律起博装置导线相关问题的重要措施,科学、有效的运用多种器械和技术在复杂病例的应用中十分重要。     

经静脉途径拔除植入心律起搏装置器械选择

目的:探讨多器械联合运用在经静脉途径拔除植入心律起搏装置中的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾性分析和总结2017-08-2019-05就诊于我院,应用多器械、综合管理成功治愈植入心律起搏装置感染或导线断裂患者的临床资料。结果:11例植入心律起搏装置患者的18根导线(导线断裂1例、起搏器综合征1例、感染9例)经静脉途径成功拔除,其中3根导线徒手拔除,15根导线运用锁定钢丝和扩张鞘拔除。4例患者运用Evolution机械鞘拔除,1例经下腔静脉途径拔除,2例患者经囊袋清创,加强抗感染后好转;6例患者于对侧植入新的心律起搏装置,3例患者无植入新的起搏装置指征。所有患者未发生严重并发症。结论:植入心律起搏装置科学管理至关重要,严格无菌操作是预防感染相关并发症的关键。综合运用多种器械,个体化制定拔除策略安全高效。     

开胸放置心外膜电极导线四例随访

报道4例经静脉途径植入电极导线失败的患者进行外科植入心外膜电极,3例心力衰竭病人因心脏冠状静脉解剖结构问题不能经心脏静脉途径植入左室电极,1例先天性心脏病术后完全性房室传导阻滞病人因多次更换起搏器,上腔静脉完全闭塞无法植入右室电极导线。4例均在全麻下成功经开胸手术植入心室心外膜电极导线,术后随访起搏感知参数正常。第1例左室心外膜电极导线于术后3年断裂,第2例术后7个月死亡,改进肋间隙处电极导线固定方法后,第3、4例分别随访29和12个月,均未发生电极断裂的并发症。     

永久起搏器电极导线导致三尖瓣病变外科治疗二例

2例永久起搏器置入患者发生重度三尖瓣返流,手术见1例为电极导线与腱索粘连伴腱索断裂,1例为导线赘生物导致瓣膜感染破坏。2例均置换瓣膜,术中需妥善处理导线。实时三维心脏超声可及时发现导线影响三尖瓣。     

经上腔静脉途径射频消融右侧前上和前间隔房室旁道

报道经上腔静脉途径射频消融右侧前上和前间隔房室旁道的体会。 13例右侧前上或前间隔单一房室旁道患者 ,常规下腔静脉途径消融未能成功 ,失败原因包括 :消融电极与心肌接触不良或难以固定于三尖瓣环上。改经上腔静脉途径成功消融阻断所有房室旁道。平均放电 1.8± 0 .7次 ,输出功率 33± 4W ,消融靶点电图振幅明显高于下腔静脉途径 (1.4± 0 .3mVvs 0 .6± 0 .4mV ,P <0 .0 5 )。术后随访 17± 9个月 ,无 1例复发。作者认为对经下腔静脉途径消融失败的右侧前上和前间隔房室旁道采用上腔静脉途径消融可获得成功。     

经永存左上腔静脉植入起搏电极体会

目的总结经永存左上腔静脉（PLSVC）植入起搏电极体会。方法总结4例PLSVC植入双腔起搏器的患者。患者出院前及出院后3个月、6个月进行随访,了解起搏器工作状态。结果4例患者术前均常规行经胸超声心动图检查,结果显示冠状静脉窦开口扩大,提示PLSVC存在可能。第1例患者因术前发现PLSVC可能,首先穿刺右侧锁骨下静脉;造影显示右上腔静脉缺如,右侧锁骨下静脉汇入PLSVC。第2、3例患者因双腔起搏器植入前反复出现心动过缓相关症状,在术前经右侧锁骨下静脉植人临时起搏器,术中造影显示PLSVC与右侧上腔静脉无交通。第4例患者在置入导丝时直接经PLSVC进入右心房。患者术后3个月、6个月常规行起搏器程控并调整起搏器出厂设置参数,此后每6—12个月行起搏器程控,程控时测量心房电极和心室电极的起搏阈值、感知和阻抗。均在满意范围。第1例患者两次随访时心律均为窦性心律,心房电极感知大于2mV,起搏阈值小于1V,阻抗小于1000Q。结论PLSVC能够顺利完成起搏电极植入。     

Clinical implications of left superior vena cava persistence in candidates for pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

Persistence of a left superior vena cava (LSVC) has been reported in 0.3%–0.4% of candidates for pacemaker (PM) or cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical implications of LSVC persistence for proper device performance. We observed the prevalence of LSVC during a 15-year period. A total of 2077 consecutive patients underwent PM implantation over a 15-year period: 7 had persistent LSVCs (0.34%). Among 599 patients undergoing ICD implantation, 4 LSVCs (0.66%) were observed. Overall LSVC persistence was found in 11/2676 (0.41%) patients. The right superior vena cava was absent in 4/11 (36%) patients. The leads were placed from the left subclavian approach in 5/7 PM patients: 2 received an elective right sided approach due to physician preference. All ICD patients had the device placed left pectoral with a single-coil lead: defibrillation therapy was effective in the long term in all but one patient, who required the addition of a subcutaneous array. Left superior vena cava persistence in PM/ICD patients is similar to the general population (0.41% in our study). The left-sided implant may be skill-demanding during lead placement; however, this task can be accomplished in the majority of cases, with a reliable outcome in the short term and appropriate device performance at follow-up.     

Persistent left superior vena cava and pacemaker implantation

Our study group read with interest the paper from Vijayvergiya et al describing the implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead in the presence of the persistence of the left superior vena cava.The issue of the identification a persistent left superior vena cava is of paramount importance in interventional cardiology,being the most common venous anomaly of the thoracic distribution,and because it may create some problem to any physician while performing a pacemaker lead implantation.In our letter we underscore the specific issues related to pacemaker implantation while encountering a persistent left superior vena cava(and maybe the absence of the right vena cava)and the workup that should be performed to obtain the preoperative diagnosis of the venous anomaly.More specifically,we consider avoiding any kind of defibrillator lead implantation through the coronary sinus for safety issues,and underscore the straightforward transthoracic ultrasound approach to identify the left superior vena cava.     

Percutaneous treatment of superior vena cava obstruction following transvenous device implantation.

The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and safety of percutaneous treatment of superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction following transvenous device implantation. SVC obstruction is an uncommon but serious complication that can occur following permanent pacemaker or cardioverter defibrillator implantation utilizing transvenous endocardial leads. The treatment has traditionally been surgical but with the advent of stents, percutaneous approach is becoming popular. We report on the prevalence of SVC obstruction and the safety of its percutaneous catheter-based treatment. This is a retrospective study of SVC obstruction following device implantation in our institution from January 1993 through November 2003. A total of 1,850 permanent pacemaker and 1,200 implantable cardioverter defibrillator initial implants were performed during that period. Three patients developed SVC obstruction following implant (prevalence, 1/1,000 implant). Two patients were males and the mean age at implant was 57 +/- 13 years. Laser lead extraction and SVC angioplasty with or without stenting were performed in all patients. In two of them, this was followed by reimplantation of new systems. There were no procedural complications or mortality. The patients remain free of SVC obstruction symptoms 24 +/- 19 months after treatment. SVC obstruction prevalence after device implantation is low. Percutaneous treatment of SVC obstruction can be safely performed and appears to be effective in maintaining medium-term patency.     

Cross-Sectional echocardiographic diagnosis of azygos continuation of the inferior vena cava

Azygos continuation of the inferior vena cava has importance for both the invasive diagnosis of congenital heart disease by catheterization and for surgical treatment. Cross-sectional echocardiography was used to examine 1,000 patients (1 day to 16 years, mean 3.3 years) who also had angiographic or surgical confirmation. Twenty-eight patients (3%) had azygos continuation (left 13, right 14, bilateral 1) and, in 26 patients, the hepatic portion of the inferior vena cava was absent. Azygos continuation was prospectively detected in all and was directly visualized in subcostal scans as a venous structure posterior to the aorta coursing behind the heart and not entering the inferior aspect of either atrium in 26/28 (93%). Azygos connection to the ipsilateral superior vena cava or atrium was correctly predicted in all. The inferior vena cava was visualized in all patients without azygos continuation, except one neonate with omphalocele. We conclude that cross-sectional echocardiography can accurately detect azygos continuation of the inferior vena cava and predict its side and connection.     

腔静脉滤器在老年下肢深静脉血栓患者治疗中的应用

目的探讨腔静脉滤器在老年下肢深静脉血栓患者治疗中的应用。方法选择77例急性下肢深静脉血栓患者,将年龄≥60岁的48例为老年组,年龄60岁的29例为非老年组,2组均置入腔静脉滤器,术后采用接触性导管溶栓23例,外周血管溶栓54例,以治疗3 d后患肢膝关节上15 cm周径较治疗前的变化判断疗效。结果全部患者顺利置入腔静脉滤器,技术成功率100%。术后无肺动脉栓塞发生。与治疗前比较,老年组和非老年组治疗后患肢膝关节上15 cm周径明显下降(P0.05),但2组治疗前后膝关节上15 cm周径变化差值无明显差异(P=0.324)。接触性导管溶栓较外周血管溶栓治疗效果更佳(P=0.000)。1例成功取出腔静脉滤器,13例次出现抗凝过度情况。结论腔静脉滤器及温和的溶栓治疗,可以有效防止老年患者肺动脉栓塞的发生,安全性高。     

Echocardiography of the Inferior Vena Cava, Superior Vena Cava, and Coronary Sinus in Right Heart Failure

Echocardiographic evaluation of the three major systemic venous channels that drain directly into the right atrium has hitherto received less attention than it deserves. Attention had been paid initially to inferior vena cava dilatation and lack of collapsibility (plethora) as signs of systemic venous congestion. Superior vena cava imaging has not been part of routine echographic evaluation; however, our recent observations on superior vena cava appearance by the right supraclavicular approach provide evidence that dilatation of superior vena cava correlates with that of inferior vena cava as a marker for venous congestion. The coronary sinus caliber, which has been virtually ignored, may also provide echographic signs of systemic congestion, namely, dilatation and lack of normal narrowing during atrial contraction.     

Coronary Sinus Ostial Atresia and Persistent Left-Sided Superior Vena Cava: Clinical Significance and Strategies for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

A 48-year-old male patient underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implantation, and he was found to have atresia of the coronary sinus ostium with venous drainage occurring via a persistent left-sided superior vena cava, which was connected to the right-sided superior vena cava by the innominate vein. This is a rare benign cardiac anomaly that can pose problems when the coronary sinus needs to be cannulated. To identify the course of the coronary sinus, a coronary angiogram can be performed with attention directed to the venous phase of the angiogram. Although the technical difficulty of coronary sinus cannulation increases, various catheters, wires, and delivery systems can be utilized and this anomaly does not usually prevent successful left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy via a left-sided superior vena cava approach. There however needs to be consideration regarding caliber of the left-sided superior vena cava being sufficiently large to avoid compromise of venous drainage after lead insertion.