Literature DB >> 16360070

Safety of transvenous cardiac resynchronization system implantation in patients with chronic heart failure: combined results of over 2,000 patients from a multicenter study program.

Angel R León1, William T Abraham, Anne B Curtis, James P Daubert, Westby G Fisher, John Gurley, David L Hayes, Randy Lieberman, Susan Petersen-Stejskal, Kevin Wheelan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of implanting a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) system.
BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients require data on the safety of the CRT implant procedure to estimate procedural risk.
METHODS: We evaluated outcomes of transvenous CRT system implantation in 2,078 patients from the Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE) study, the MIRACLE Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) study, and the InSync III study. We compared the MIRACLE study to the InSync III study and the MIRACLE ICD study randomized phase to its general phase to evaluate the effect of new technologies.
RESULTS: The implant attempt succeeded in 1,903 of 2,078 (91.6%) patients. Implant time decreased from 2.7 h in the MIRACLE study to 2.3 h in the InSync III study (p < 0.001), and from 2.8 h in the MIRACLE ICD study randomized phase to 2.4 h in the general phase (p < 0.001). The implant procedure produced 62 perioperative complications in 53 (9.3%) MIRACLE trial patients; 159 in 135 (21.1%) MIRACLE ICD study randomized phase patients and 71 in 62 (13.9%) general phase patients (p < 0.05 vs. randomized); and 41 in 37 (8.8%) InSync III study patients (p = NS vs. the MIRACLE study). We observed 73 postoperative complications in 62 (11.7%) MIRACLE trial patients, 77 in 68 (11.9%) MIRACLE ICD study randomized phase patients and 56 in 45 (11.0%) general phase patients (p = NS), and 37 in 34 (8.6%) InSync III study patients (p = NS). A total of 8% of patients required reoperation to treat lead dislodgement, extracardiac stimulation, or infection during follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Transvenous CRT system implantation appears safe, well-tolerated, has a high success rate, and improves with operator experience and the addition of new technologies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16360070     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.08.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  48 in total

1.  Comparison of the acute hemodynamic effect of right ventricular apex, outflow tract, and dual-site right ventricular pacing.

Authors:  Andrzej Rubaj; Piotr Rucinski; Tomasz Sodolski; Andrzej Bilan; Marcin Gulaj; Alicja Dabrowska-Kugacka; Andrzej Kutarski
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.468

2.  Left ventricular endocardial pacing in cardiac resynchronisation therapy: Moving from bench to bedside.

Authors:  F A Bracke; B M van Gelder; L R C Dekker; P Houthuizen; J F Ter Woorst; J A Teijink
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.380

3.  [Technical innovations and limitation in cardiac electrotherapy].

Authors:  H-H Minden
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2011-03

4.  Utility of a novel pacing guidewire in pre-implantation testing at different left ventricular sites in cardiac resynchronization therapy procedures.

Authors:  Ngai Yin Chan; Chi Chung Choy; Chun Leung Lau; Ying Keung Lo; Pui Shan Chu; Ho Chuen Yuen; Suet Ting Lau
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  3D dynamic position assessment of the coronary sinus lead in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Cristiana Corsi; Corrado Tomasi; Dario Turco; Massimo Margheri; Claudio Lamberti; Stefano Severi
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  [Optimal electrode placement. What to consider during implantation of a biventricular pacemaker?].

Authors:  C Butter; H-H Minden
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2009-09

7.  Improved implant and postoperative lead performance in CRT-D patients implanted with a quadripolar left ventricular lead. A 6-month follow-up analysis from a multicenter prospective comparative study.

Authors:  Giovanni B Forleo; Luigi Di Biase; Germana Panattoni; Massimo Mantica; Quintino Parisi; Annamaria Martino; Augusto Pappalardo; Domenico Sergi; Manfredi Tesauro; Lida P Papavasileiou; Luca Santini; Leonardo Calò; Claudio Tondo; Andrea Natale; Francesco Romeo
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-12-13       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  Snare coupling of the pre-pectoral pacing lead delivery catheter to the femoral transseptal apparatus for endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy : mid-term results.

Authors:  Mehul B Patel; Seth J Worley
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 1.900

9.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy update: evolving indications, expanding benefit?

Authors:  C Butcher; Y Mareev; V Markides; M Mason; T Wong; J G F Cleland
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.931

10.  Left ventricular or biventricular pacing? Single or multielectrode leads? An implanter's viewpoint.

Authors:  Kamal K Sethi; Kabir Sethi; Surendra K Chutani
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 1.900

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.