Literature DB >> 21651592

Management of phrenic stimulation in CRT patients over the long term: still an unmet need ?

Mauro Biffi1, Matteo Bertini, Matteo Ziacchi, Beatrice Gardini, Andrea Mazzotti, Giulia Massaro, Igor Diemberger, Cristian Martignani, Cinzia Valzania, Giuseppe Boriani.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Phrenic stimulation (PS) may cause intolerable symptoms and prevent CRT delivery in 2-5% of patients. We sought to ensure effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery by management of PS at the left ventricular (LV) target site. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Two hundred and eleven consecutive patients received a CRT device despite PS occurrence at the LV target site at implantation, when a PS-LV difference >2V was achieved by LV stimulation programming (cathode, pacing vector). PS management strategy both at implantation and at follow-up (FU) aimed to keep the target LV implantation site. LV reverse remodeling was assessed by echocardiography before implantation and at follow-up. LV lead placement was lateral/posterolateral in all the 211 patients; 51 of 211 had detectable PS at FU, 26 of 211 (12.3%) were symptomatic. Symptoms occurred more frequently when PS-LV difference was <3V (16/16 vs 10/35, P < 0.001). Cathode and pacing vector reprogramming improved the PS-LV difference and symptoms in 14 of 23 patients. LV output as threshold +0.5V was helpful to manage PS symptoms in patients with a PS-LV ≤2V at FU. Median FU was 34.9 (16-50) months: 12 patients had tolerable PS symptoms, 76% (39/51) were objective responders at echocardiography compared to 74% (119/160) in patients without PS (P = NS).
CONCLUSIONS: CRT delivery at long term is feasible despite PS at the target LV site. PS management is mandatory in about 12.3% of patients at FU, with 6.6% remaining symptomatic. Symptoms improve at FU when a PS-LV >3V is achieved. Further improvement in lead manufacturing and pacing electronics are awaited to meet this clinical need. ©2011, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21651592     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03147.x

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Phrenic nerve stimulation in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Ghassan Moubarak; Abdeslam Bouzeman; Jacky Ollitrault; Frederic Anselme; Serge Cazeau
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Comparison of different pacing strategies to minimize phrenic nerve stimulation in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Jose F Huizar; Karoly Kaszala; Jayanthi N Koneru; Leroy R Thacker; Kenneth A Ellenbogen
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2013-04-26

Review 3.  An Overview of Current Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Authors:  Chien-Ming Cheng; Jin-Long Huang; Tsu-Juey Wu; Yu-Cheng Hsieh; Kuo-Yang Wang; Shih-Ann Chen
Journal:  Acta Cardiol Sin       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.672

4.  Phrenic nerve stimulation in CRT patients and benefits of electronic lead repositioning: the ERACE trial.

Authors:  Stephan Goetze; Pascal Defaye; Alexander Bauer; Matthias Merkel; Olivier Bizeau; Sven Treusch; Klaus Contzen; Claus Juenger; Joachim Winter
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  Percutaneous Epicardial Pacing using a Novel Insulated Multi-electrode Lead.

Authors:  Faisal F Syed; Christopher V DeSimone; Elisa Ebrille; Prakriti Gaba; Dorothy J Ladewig; Susan B Mikell; Scott H Suddendorf; Emily J Gilles; Andrew J Danielsen; Markéta Lukášová; Jiří Wolf; Pavel Leinveber; Miroslav Novák; Zdeněk Stárek; Tomas Kara; Charles J Bruce; Paul A Friedman; Samuel J Asirvatham
Journal:  JACC Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2015-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.