Left ventricular endocardial pacing in the real world: Five years of experience at a single center.

BACKGROUND: A left ventricular (LV) endocardial lead implant to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is feasible when a conventional implant failed due to anatomical or technical issues or when the venous implant was performed but the patient did not respond to the therapy. METHODS: Data about the implantation procedure (age, sex, clinical characteristics, anticoagulant use, and previous devices), patient characteristics (indication, technique used, lead model, complications), and follow-up (clinical and echocardiographic outcome, LV lead electrical measurements) were analyzed for all CRT systems implanted using LV endocardial lead, due to failed conventional implant or nonresponse, between April 2011 and November 2016. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were implanted with an active fixation LV endocardial lead during the study period, without significant complications. There were no dislodgements or severe complications related to the implant procedure in the follow-up period (36 ± 20 months) and a high percentage of patients responded to therapy, as assessed by several indicators. CONCLUSIONS: An LV endocardial lead implant was feasible when the conventional technique had previously failed or was not effective. A high rate of response was achieved without any significant complications.

Transfemoral access when superior venous approach is not feasible equals overall success of permanent pacemaker implantation. Ten-year series.

BACKGROUND: When permanent pacemaker implantation is not possible or advisable via superior venous access (i.e., axillary or subclavian veins), safe and feasible surgical alternatives are required. The femoral approach is relatively unknown and seldom studied. This single-center study analyzed 10-year outcomes of a femoral implantation approach. METHODS: Data about the implantation procedure (indication, approach, lead and pacemaker models, complications), patient characteristics (age, sex, medications, comorbidities), and follow-up were analyzed for all permanent pacemaker implantations using the femoral approach between June 2001 and June 2011. RESULTS: A permanent pacemaker was implanted with the femoral approach in 50 patients (mean age, 76 years [range: 45-96], 31 [61%] men). The most frequent indication was atrioventricular block, associated with sinus rhythm in 30 patients and with atrial fibrillation in eight patients. Overall, 20 patients (40%) were treated with oral anticoagulants postimplantation. Mean implantation time was 64 minutes (range: 20-210) and mean fluoroscopy time was 6.7 minutes (range: 0.2-50). Minimum follow-up window was 1 year (June 2012), with a mean of 50 months [range: 1-113]). No deaths, septic episodes, or severe complications were associated with the procedure, acute or long-term. Follow-up data were available for 46 patients, of who 21 (46%) died during follow-up (mean age, 87 years [range: 73-101]). No cause of death was associated with the femoral technique. CONCLUSION: Permanent pacemaker implantation through femoral access is not difficult for an experienced implant surgeon. Outcomes were comparable to systems implanted by superior venous approach, and no severe complications were observed at 10-year follow-up.

Lower incidence of venous thrombosis with temporary active-fixation lead implantation in mobile patients.

AIMS: Temporary transfemoral cardiac pacing is widely accepted, but is associated with high incidence of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), which in turn is associated with restricted patient mobility. The passive-fixation lead typically used in this procedure restricts patient mobility during implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: An active-fixation lead allowing normal ambulation was prospectively assessed in 47 consecutive patients. Prior to explantation, venous duplex ultrasound was performed to determine DVT incidence, with the contralateral leg as control. To reduce possible false negatives, ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy was also performed (n = 42). Patient mobility during implantation was classified as high (n = 29), moderate (n = 6), or low (n = 12). Anticoagulants were limited to cases meeting standard guidelines. Asymptomatic DVT was diagnosed in three patients (6.4%), compared with 25-39% reported using standard passive-fixation leads. Furthermore, all of these patients had low mobility during the implantation period. No post-implantation lung scan showed high probability of pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSION: In the 75% of patients with moderate or high mobility, there were no DVT cases. The 6.4% DVT incidence was limited to patients with low mobility and was significantly lower than the norm for this procedure. A larger, randomized study is needed to confirm the benefits of the mobility allowed by an active-fixation lead.

Permanent transfemoral pacemaker: a single-center series performed with an easier and safer surgical technique.

INTRODUCTION: When venous access via the upper venous tree is not possible, the usual approach is to proceed to epicardial lead placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This report presents a consecutive series of 12 permanent pacemaker systems utilizing the right femoral vein for venous access implanted between May 2001 and October 2004. RESULTS: A modification of the previously reported surgical technique was used with a mean implant time of 52 minutes. Five were dual-chamber systems and seven were VVIR. All the leads implanted were active fixation. There was a 0% dislodgment rate and a mean follow-up of 18 months. During this time, three patients required revision or treatment of a pocket complication. All systems remained in the pacing mode as originally programmed with stable low sensing and pacing thresholds. There was no clinical evidence for acute or chronic venous thrombosis and no evidence of asymptomatic venous obstruction in eight patients who underwent echo-duplex studies. CONCLUSION: We believe that the permanent femoral implant utilizing the technical modifications described in this article, offers an alternative to epicardial lead placement when the usual upper venous tree access is not available.