INTRODUCTION: Fluoroscopic visualization for transvenous pacing lead placement necessitates lead shielding to minimize radiation exposure. An electromagnetic (EM) navigation system that integrates real-time intracardiac tracking within an anatomic navigation environment may provide an effective alternative for lead delivery that obviates live fluoroscopy. We assessed feasibility of pacing lead implantation with electromagnetic tracking guided solely by radiographic virtual navigation and compared this to fluoroscopy-guided implants in a canine model. METHODS: Seven mongrel dogs with normal hearts were randomized to 47 pacing lead placements in the right atrium (RA) or right ventricle (RV) guided by single-plane fluoroscopy, or an experimental EM navigation system guided by registered fluoroscopic snapshots obtained before implant (EMN). Ability to achieve successful lead delivery acutely was assessed, and pacing parameters as well as fluoroscopy and implant times were measured. Means were compared using a paired t-test. RESULTS: All lead delivery attempts were acutely successful. One atrial lead dislodged with EMN, resulting in 46 successful pacing attempts. There was no statistical difference in pacing parameters and time for lead placement between the approaches (EMN vs fluoroscopic navigation [mean +/- SD]: RA threshold 1.15 V +/- 0.98 V vs 1.95 V +/- 0.98 V [P = NS], RV threshold 1.18 V +/- 0.58 V vs 1.42 V +/- 0.63 V [P = NS], implant time 4:38 +/- 2:37 minutes vs 4:44 +/- 2:38 minutes [P = NS]). No live fluoroscopy was required for EMN implants. CONCLUSION: Pacing lead placement with an EM system guided by preprocedural fluoroscopic views is feasible and comparable to fluoroscopic navigation, and avoids the use of live fluoroscopy.
INTRODUCTION: Fluoroscopic visualization for transvenous pacing lead placement necessitates lead shielding to minimize radiation exposure. An electromagnetic (EM) navigation system that integrates real-time intracardiac tracking within an anatomic navigation environment may provide an effective alternative for lead delivery that obviates live fluoroscopy. We assessed feasibility of pacing lead implantation with electromagnetic tracking guided solely by radiographic virtual navigation and compared this to fluoroscopy-guided implants in a canine model. METHODS: Seven mongrel dogs with normal hearts were randomized to 47 pacing lead placements in the right atrium (RA) or right ventricle (RV) guided by single-plane fluoroscopy, or an experimental EM navigation system guided by registered fluoroscopic snapshots obtained before implant (EMN). Ability to achieve successful lead delivery acutely was assessed, and pacing parameters as well as fluoroscopy and implant times were measured. Means were compared using a paired t-test. RESULTS: All lead delivery attempts were acutely successful. One atrial lead dislodged with EMN, resulting in 46 successful pacing attempts. There was no statistical difference in pacing parameters and time for lead placement between the approaches (EMN vs fluoroscopic navigation [mean +/- SD]: RA threshold 1.15 V +/- 0.98 V vs 1.95 V +/- 0.98 V [P = NS], RV threshold 1.18 V +/- 0.58 V vs 1.42 V +/- 0.63 V [P = NS], implant time 4:38 +/- 2:37 minutes vs 4:44 +/- 2:38 minutes [P = NS]). No live fluoroscopy was required for EMN implants. CONCLUSION: Pacing lead placement with an EM system guided by preprocedural fluoroscopic views is feasible and comparable to fluoroscopic navigation, and avoids the use of live fluoroscopy.