OBJECTIVE: The persistence of a left superior vena cava (LSVC) has been observed in 0.3% of the general population as established by autopsy. In the adult population, it is an important anatomic finding if a left superior approach to the heart is considered. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of a LSVC in patients undergoing pacemaker (PM) and cardioverter-defibrillator (CD) implantation. DESIGN: We observed the prevalence of LSVC during a 10-year period; each patient undergoing PM or transvenous CD implantation received a left cephalic/left subclavian venous approach to the heart. With this technique, LSVC persistence is easily diagnosed during lead placement. RESULTS: A total of 1,139 patients consecutively underwent PM implantation during 10 years: 4 patients had persistent LSCV (0.34%). Among 115 patients undergoing CD implantation, 2 patients with LSVC (1.7%) were observed. Overall LSVC persistence was found in 6 of 1,254 patients (0.47%). Two patients, one of whom had no right superior vena cava (RSVC), received a left-sided PM, whereas two other patients received right-sided devices. Both CD patients received a left-sided active-can device: the first patient with a right-sided lead tunneled to the left pectoral pocket, as a result of poor catheter handling through the LSVC and coronary sinus, and the second patient with a screw-in lead from LSVC. Long-term follow-up of these patients (average +/- SD, 41 +/- 26 months) revealed absence of lead dislodgment and appropriate device function regardless of lead implantation site. CONCLUSIONS: Persistence of LSVC in adults undergoing PM/CD implantation is similar to that of the general population (0.47% in our study). The left-sided implant can be achieved by stylet shaping and by use of active fixation leads in most patients, with a reliable outcome at short term in addition to appropriate device performance at follow-up. Assessment of the RSVC is advisable when planning a right-sided implantation, since a minority of patients lacks this vessel.
OBJECTIVE: The persistence of a left superior vena cava (LSVC) has been observed in 0.3% of the general population as established by autopsy. In the adult population, it is an important anatomic finding if a left superior approach to the heart is considered. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of a LSVC in patients undergoing pacemaker (PM) and cardioverter-defibrillator (CD) implantation. DESIGN: We observed the prevalence of LSVC during a 10-year period; each patient undergoing PM or transvenous CD implantation received a left cephalic/left subclavian venous approach to the heart. With this technique, LSVC persistence is easily diagnosed during lead placement. RESULTS: A total of 1,139 patients consecutively underwent PM implantation during 10 years: 4 patients had persistent LSCV (0.34%). Among 115 patients undergoing CD implantation, 2 patients with LSVC (1.7%) were observed. Overall LSVC persistence was found in 6 of 1,254 patients (0.47%). Two patients, one of whom had no right superior vena cava (RSVC), received a left-sided PM, whereas two other patients received right-sided devices. Both CDpatients received a left-sided active-can device: the first patient with a right-sided lead tunneled to the left pectoral pocket, as a result of poor catheter handling through the LSVC and coronary sinus, and the second patient with a screw-in lead from LSVC. Long-term follow-up of these patients (average +/- SD, 41 +/- 26 months) revealed absence of lead dislodgment and appropriate device function regardless of lead implantation site. CONCLUSIONS: Persistence of LSVC in adults undergoing PM/CD implantation is similar to that of the general population (0.47% in our study). The left-sided implant can be achieved by stylet shaping and by use of active fixation leads in most patients, with a reliable outcome at short term in addition to appropriate device performance at follow-up. Assessment of the RSVC is advisable when planning a right-sided implantation, since a minority of patients lacks this vessel.
Authors: Lynette L S Teo; Tim Cannell; Sonya V Babu-Narayan; Marina Hughes; Raad H Mohiaddin Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Stefan Asbach; Jürgen Biermann; Ulrich Giesler; Tobias Baumann; Manfred Zehender; Christoph Bode; Thomas S Faber Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2009-02-13 Impact factor: 5.460