AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a recognized treatment for appropriate patients. However, placement of the transvenous left ventricular lead is unsuccessful in 5-10% of patients and a further 20% fail to respond. For these groups, epicardial left ventricular lead placement is one alternative. We prospectively evaluated the effects of epicardial vs. transvenous placed CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-three subjects with unsuccessful transvenous coronary sinus lead placement underwent epicardial implantation. The subjects underwent clinical evaluation, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and echocardiography before 3 and 6 months after. The results were compared with a control group (n = 35) who had received transvenous CRT. In both groups, there were significant improvements in all measures at 3 and 6 months. The improvement in peak VO(2) was delayed in the epicardial group compared with the transvenous group. At 6 months, the improvements seen in all variables showed no difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Epicardial lead placement is a viable option for patients with unsuccessful coronary sinus lead placement. The improvements in most variables were of a similar magnitude and over a similar time scale compared with transvenous placement. Improvements in peak VO(2) were delayed in the epicardial group, probably as a result of a prolonged recovery time.
AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a recognized treatment for appropriate patients. However, placement of the transvenous left ventricular lead is unsuccessful in 5-10% of patients and a further 20% fail to respond. For these groups, epicardial left ventricular lead placement is one alternative. We prospectively evaluated the effects of epicardial vs. transvenous placed CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-three subjects with unsuccessful transvenous coronary sinus lead placement underwent epicardial implantation. The subjects underwent clinical evaluation, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and echocardiography before 3 and 6 months after. The results were compared with a control group (n = 35) who had received transvenous CRT. In both groups, there were significant improvements in all measures at 3 and 6 months. The improvement in peak VO(2) was delayed in the epicardial group compared with the transvenous group. At 6 months, the improvements seen in all variables showed no difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Epicardial lead placement is a viable option for patients with unsuccessful coronary sinus lead placement. The improvements in most variables were of a similar magnitude and over a similar time scale compared with transvenous placement. Improvements in peak VO(2) were delayed in the epicardial group, probably as a result of a prolonged recovery time.
Authors: Amy L Miller; Daniel B Kramer; Eldrin F Lewis; Bruce Koplan; Laurence M Epstein; Usha Tedrow Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 1.976