Literature DB >> 21029136

Long-term outcome of leads and patients following robotic epicardial left ventricular lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Ganesh S Kamath1, Sandhya Balaram, Andrew Choi, Olga Kuteyeva, Naga Vamsi Garikipati, Jonathan S Steinberg, Suneet Mittal.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), positive clinical response and reverse remodeling have been reported using robotically assisted left ventricular (LV) epicardial lead placement. However, the long-term performance of epicardial leads and long-term outcome of patients who undergo CRT via robotic assistance are unknown. In addition, since the LV lead placement is more invasive than a transvenous procedure, it is important to identify patients at higher risk of complications.
METHODS: We evaluated 78 consecutive patients (70 ± 11 years, 50 male) who underwent robotic epicardial LV lead placement. The short- (<12 months) and long-term (≥ 12 months) lead performance was determined through device interrogations. Mortality data were determined by contact with the patient's family and referring physicians and confirmed using the Social Security Death Index.
RESULTS: All patients had successful lead placement and were discharged in stable condition. When compared to the time of implantation, there was a significant increase in pacing threshold (1.0 ± 0.5 vs 2.14 ± 1.2; P < 0.001) and decrease in lead impedance (1010 ± 240 Ω vs 491 ± 209 Ω; P < 0.001) at short-term follow-up. The pacing threshold (2.3 ± 1.2 vs 2.14 ± 1.2; P = 0.30) and lead impedance (451 ± 157 Ω vs 491 ± 209 Ω; P = 0.10) remained stable during long-term follow-up when compared to short-term values. At a follow-up of 44 ± 21 months, there were 20 deaths (26%). These patients were older (77 ± 7 vs 67 ± 11 years; P = 0.001) and had a lower ejection fraction (EF) (13 ± 7% vs 18 ± 9%; P = 0.02) than surviving patients.
CONCLUSION: Robotically implanted epicardial LV leads for CRT perform well over short- and long-term follow-up. Older patients with a very low EF are at higher risk of death. The risks and benefits of this procedure should be carefully considered in these patients. ©2010, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21029136     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02943.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  6 in total

Review 1.  Robotic technology in cardiovascular medicine.

Authors:  Johannes Bonatti; George Vetrovec; Celia Riga; Oussama Wazni; Petr Stadler
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 2.  Optimizing CRT - Do We Need More Leads and Delivery Methods.

Authors:  Pieter Martens; Frederik Hendrik Verbrugge; Wilfried Mullens
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2015-04-30

Review 3.  Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy-Emerging Therapeutic Approaches.

Authors:  Neal A Chatterjee; E Kevin Heist
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-03-06

4.  Robotics in cardiac surgery: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Bryan Bush; L Wiley Nifong; W Randolph Chitwood
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2013-07-25

5.  Current and Future Use of Robotic Devices to Perform Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Review.

Authors:  Elad Maor; Mackram F Eleid; Rajiv Gulati; Amir Lerman; Gurpreet S Sandhu
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 5.501

6.  Implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillation system using a robotic approach.

Authors:  Sana Amraoui; Louis Labrousse; Jean-Luc Jansens; Manav Sohal; Pierre Bordachar; Philippe Ritter
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2015-07-13
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.