PURPOSE: Despite novel left ventricular (LV) lead technologies, phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) remains an adverse effect observed in many patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Beyond anatomic repositioning, modern CRT devices allow avoidance of PNS also by software-based adaption of the pacing configuration. The Electronic Repositioning With Acuity and Easytrak Leads study evaluated the incidence of PNS in a CRT population and examined how often LV lead relocation can be avoided by "electronic repositioning" (ER). METHODS: Patients who had an indication for implantation of a first CRT defibrillator with the option of ER were enrolled. Primary endpoint was the efficiency of ER determined by the frequency of PNS with the standard pacing configuration (LV tip to RV coil) avoidable by ER. PNS and pacing parameters were evaluated during implant, predischarge, and first routine follow-up (FU) using four different pacing configurations available by ER. RESULTS: In total, 292 patients were enrolled and provided with a transvenous LV lead (82.2 % male, 65.5 ± 9.2 years old). The majority of the population was in NYHA III (84.2 %) with a LV ejection fraction of 25.3 ± 6.8 % and mean QRS width of 155 ± 27 ms, ischemic cardiomyopathy was present in 43.6 %. Median FU was 116 days. In the standard pacing configuration, PNS was inducible in 19.0/25.6/24.6 % at implant/predischarge/FU, respectively, resulting in 32.2 % of the patients presenting at least once with PNS. The safety margin for the standard pacing configuration between LV and PNS threshold was <1.0 V at 0.5 ms in 5.6/7.0/5.0 % of the patients, corresponding with a total rate of 11.6 % during the FU. In the finally chosen configuration, clinically relevant PNS occurred in 1.0/2.2/1.3 %. The four vector configurations allowed all but 6 of 292 (2 %) patients to be reprogrammed using ER without reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of inducible PNS in CRT patients is considerable. In this study, PNS could be avoided in the majority of the patients by means of electronic repositioning. Thus, the use of ER should be considered for CRT patients.
PURPOSE: Despite novel left ventricular (LV) lead technologies, phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) remains an adverse effect observed in many patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Beyond anatomic repositioning, modern CRT devices allow avoidance of PNS also by software-based adaption of the pacing configuration. The Electronic Repositioning With Acuity and Easytrak Leads study evaluated the incidence of PNS in a CRT population and examined how often LV lead relocation can be avoided by "electronic repositioning" (ER). METHODS:Patients who had an indication for implantation of a first CRT defibrillator with the option of ER were enrolled. Primary endpoint was the efficiency of ER determined by the frequency of PNS with the standard pacing configuration (LV tip to RV coil) avoidable by ER. PNS and pacing parameters were evaluated during implant, predischarge, and first routine follow-up (FU) using four different pacing configurations available by ER. RESULTS: In total, 292 patients were enrolled and provided with a transvenous LV lead (82.2 % male, 65.5 ± 9.2 years old). The majority of the population was in NYHA III (84.2 %) with a LV ejection fraction of 25.3 ± 6.8 % and mean QRS width of 155 ± 27 ms, ischemic cardiomyopathy was present in 43.6 %. Median FU was 116 days. In the standard pacing configuration, PNS was inducible in 19.0/25.6/24.6 % at implant/predischarge/FU, respectively, resulting in 32.2 % of the patients presenting at least once with PNS. The safety margin for the standard pacing configuration between LV and PNS threshold was <1.0 V at 0.5 ms in 5.6/7.0/5.0 % of the patients, corresponding with a total rate of 11.6 % during the FU. In the finally chosen configuration, clinically relevant PNS occurred in 1.0/2.2/1.3 %. The four vector configurations allowed all but 6 of 292 (2 %) patients to be reprogrammed using ER without reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of inducible PNS in CRT patients is considerable. In this study, PNS could be avoided in the majority of the patients by means of electronic repositioning. Thus, the use of ER should be considered for CRT patients.
Authors: Jean Champagne; Jeffrey S Healey; Andrew D Krahn; Francois Philippon; Osnat Gurevitz; Anne Swearingen; Michael Glikson Journal: Europace Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Norbert Klein; Maika Klein; Heinrich Weglage; Oliver Przibille; Sven Fischer; Hans-Joachim Trappe; Frank Birkenhauer; Dietrich Pfeiffer Journal: Europace Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Angel R León; William T Abraham; Anne B Curtis; James P Daubert; Westby G Fisher; John Gurley; David L Hayes; Randy Lieberman; Susan Petersen-Stejskal; Kevin Wheelan Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mariell Jessup; William T Abraham; Donald E Casey; Arthur M Feldman; Gary S Francis; Theodore G Ganiats; Marvin A Konstam; Donna M Mancini; Peter S Rahko; Marc A Silver; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marmar Vaseghi; David A Cesario; Sen Ji; Kevin M Shannon; Isaac Wiener; Noel G Boyle; Gregg C Fonarow; Miguel Valderrábano; Kalyanam Shivkumar Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 1.976
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