Literature DB >> 22848075

Occurrence of phrenic nerve stimulation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: the role of left ventricular lead type and placement site.

Mauro Biffi1, Derek V Exner, George H Crossley, Brian Ramza, Benoit Coutu, Gery Tomassoni, Wolfgang Kranig, Shelby Li, Nina Kristiansen, Frederik Voss.   

Abstract

AIMS: Unwanted phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) has been reported in ∼1 in 4 patients undergoing left ventricular (LV) pacing. The occurrence of PNS over mid-term follow-up and the significance of PNS are less certain. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Data from 1307 patients enrolled in pre-market studies of LV leads manufactured by Medtronic (models 4193 and 4195 unipolar, 4194, 4196, 4296, and 4396 bipolar) were pooled. Left ventricular lead location was recorded at implant using a common classification scheme. Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms were either spontaneously reported or identified at scheduled follow-up visits. A PNS-related complication was defined as PNS resulting in invasive intervention or the termination of LV pacing. Average follow-up was 14.9 months (range 0.0-46.6). Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms occurred in 169 patients (12.9%). Phrenic nerve stimulation-related complications occurred in 21 of 1307 patients (1.6%); 16 of 738 (2.2%) in the unipolar lead studies, and 5 of 569 (0.9%) in the bipolar lead studies (P = 0.08). Phrenic nerve stimulation was more frequent at middle-lateral/posterior, and apical LV sites (139/1010) vs. basal-posterior/lateral/anterior, and middle-anterior sites (20/297; P= 0.01). As compared with an anterior LV lead position, a lateral LV pacing site was associated with over a four-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.005) and an apical LV pacing site was associated with over six-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Phrenic nerve stimulation occurred in 13% of patients undergoing LV lead placement and was more common at mid-lateral/posterior, and LV apical sites. Most cases (123/139; 88%) of PNS were mitigated via electrical reprogramming, without the need for invasive intervention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22848075     DOI: 10.1093/europace/eus237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  11 in total

1.  Single- and dual-site ventricular pacing entirely through the coronary sinus for patients with prior tricuspid valve surgery.

Authors:  Chin C Lee; Khuyen Do; Sati Patel; Steven K Carlson; Tomas Konecny; Philip M Chang; Rahul N Doshi
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  A Meta-Analysis Of Quadripolar Versus Bipolar Left Ventricular Leads On Post-Procedural Outcomes.

Authors:  Mohit K Turagam; Muhammad R Afzal; Sandia Iskander; Luigi Di Biase; Andrea Natale; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2016-08-31

Review 3.  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

4.  Diaphragmatic stimulation caused by cardiac resynchronization treatment.

Authors:  Rahman Shah; Zoe Qualls
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Delivered Via a Multipolar Left Ventricular Lead is Associated with Reduced Mortality and Elimination of Phrenic Nerve Stimulation: Long-Term Follow-Up from a Multicenter Registry.

Authors:  Jonathan M Behar; Julian Bostock; Adrian Po Zhu Li; Hui Men Selina Chin; Stephen Jubb; Edward Lent; James Gamble; Paul W X Foley; Tim R Betts; Christopher Aldo Rinaldi; Neil Herring
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2015-03-05

8.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Quadripolar Versus Bipolar Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Defibrillator Therapy in a Large, Multicenter UK Registry.

Authors:  Jonathan M Behar; Hui Men Selina Chin; Steve Fearn; Julian O M Ormerod; James Gamble; Paul W X Foley; Julian Bostock; Simon Claridge; Tom Jackson; Manav Sohal; Antonios P Antoniadis; Reza Razavi; Tim R Betts; Neil Herring; Christopher Aldo Rinaldi
Journal:  JACC Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2017-02

9.  Phrenic nerve stimulation, a rare complication of pacemaker: A case report.

Authors:  Meddy Dalex; Astrid Malezieux; Thibault Parent; Dina Zekry; Christine Serratrice
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy: a comparison among left ventricular bipolar, quadripolar and active fixation leads.

Authors:  M Ziacchi; I Diemberger; A Corzani; C Martignani; A Mazzotti; G Massaro; C Valzania; C Rapezzi; G Boriani; M Biffi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.