AIMS: Recent studies suggest differences in coronary venous anatomy between patients with ischaemic (I) and non-ischaemic (N) cardiomyopathy. We hypothesize that these differences may affect the potential for left ventricular (LV) lead targeting in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The retrograde contrast venograms were retrospectively reviewed in 133 patients (age 68 +/- 9 years, 101 males). The quantity and distribution of veins were recorded as well as the final lead position. There were no major differences in the distribution of LV lead positions between I and N [posterior vein, 14.0% (I) vs. 15.8% (N); posterolateral vein, 21.1 vs. 18.4%; lateral vein, 59.7 vs. 50.0%; anterolateral vein, 3.5 vs. 13.2%; P= NS]. Excluding the middle and great cardiac veins, in total only 59 of 133 patients had more than one suitable vein as potential targets for LV lead placement (I, 36.8% vs. N, 50.0%; P = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Underlying aetiology does not affect the quantity and distribution of coronary veins available for LV lead placement. The limitations of venous anatomy restrict LV lead placement to a single vein with little scope for site selection in almost half of all the patients. Given these limitations, in many patients, prospective targeting of LV lead placement may require a direct surgical approach.
AIMS: Recent studies suggest differences in coronary venous anatomy between patients with ischaemic (I) and non-ischaemic (N) cardiomyopathy. We hypothesize that these differences may affect the potential for left ventricular (LV) lead targeting in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The retrograde contrast venograms were retrospectively reviewed in 133 patients (age 68 +/- 9 years, 101 males). The quantity and distribution of veins were recorded as well as the final lead position. There were no major differences in the distribution of LV lead positions between I and N [posterior vein, 14.0% (I) vs. 15.8% (N); posterolateral vein, 21.1 vs. 18.4%; lateral vein, 59.7 vs. 50.0%; anterolateral vein, 3.5 vs. 13.2%; P= NS]. Excluding the middle and great cardiac veins, in total only 59 of 133 patients had more than one suitable vein as potential targets for LV lead placement (I, 36.8% vs. N, 50.0%; P = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Underlying aetiology does not affect the quantity and distribution of coronary veins available for LV lead placement. The limitations of venous anatomy restrict LV lead placement to a single vein with little scope for site selection in almost half of all the patients. Given these limitations, in many patients, prospective targeting of LV lead placement may require a direct surgical approach.
Authors: Haitham A Badran; John Z Kamel; Tarek R Mohamed; Mohamed A Abdelhamid Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Naomi D Herz; Joseph Engeda; Robbert Zusterzeel; William E Sanders; Kathryn M O'Callaghan; David G Strauss; Samantha B Jacobs; Kimberly A Selzman; Ileana L Piña; Daniel A Caños Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2015-03-20 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Ahmad Yaminisharif; Gholamreza Davoodi; Ali Kazemisaeid; Saeed Sadeghian; Ali Vasheghani Farahani; Parin Yazdanifard; Mehrdad Sheikhvatan; Akbar Shafiee Journal: J Tehran Heart Cent Date: 2012-02-28
Authors: Andrew J M Lewis; Paul Foley; Zachary Whinnett; Daniel Keene; Badrinathan Chandrasekaran Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 5.501