Alexios Hadjis1, Riccardo Proietti2, Vidal Essebag1,3. 1. McGill University Health Centre, 1650 Cedar Avenue, Room E5-200, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1A4, Canada. 2. Cardiology Department, Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan, Italy. 3. Hôpital Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
AIMS: Percutaneous subclavian, axillary, and cephalic vein access are all used in conjunction for atrial and ventricular lead implantation, though no standard approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation has been established. We describe an effective and a safe technique for implanting three leads via cephalic vein for CRT pacemaker and/or defibrillator implantations. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 171 consecutive patients undergoing de novo implantation of CRT pacemaker or defibrillator were included. Cephalic vein access was achieved by dissection and direct visualization. If the cephalic vein was inadequate, alternate means of access was determined after outset of the procedure. Procedural success rates and complications were recorded. Of the 171 de novo CRT implant attempts, 169 (98.8%) patients had successful implantation of all 3 leads on the first attempt. Of the 171 procedural attempts, 150 (87.7%) patients had all 3 leads placed via cephalic vein. Overall, complications occurred in 6 of 171 patients (3.5%) including initial and repeat procedures. These complications included seven lead dislodgements, two cases of diaphragmatic stimulation requiring lead revision, and one coronary sinus dissection without pericardial effusion. There were no cases of pneumothorax, pocket haematoma requiring evacuation, or infection. CONCLUSION: The triple lead via cephalic vein technique is safe and effective when used as a first approach for CRT device implantation. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Percutaneous subclavian, axillary, and cephalic vein access are all used in conjunction for atrial and ventricular lead implantation, though no standard approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation has been established. We describe an effective and a safe technique for implanting three leads via cephalic vein for CRT pacemaker and/or defibrillator implantations. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 171 consecutive patients undergoing de novo implantation of CRT pacemaker or defibrillator were included. Cephalic vein access was achieved by dissection and direct visualization. If the cephalic vein was inadequate, alternate means of access was determined after outset of the procedure. Procedural success rates and complications were recorded. Of the 171 de novo CRT implant attempts, 169 (98.8%) patients had successful implantation of all 3 leads on the first attempt. Of the 171 procedural attempts, 150 (87.7%) patients had all 3 leads placed via cephalic vein. Overall, complications occurred in 6 of 171 patients (3.5%) including initial and repeat procedures. These complications included seven lead dislodgements, two cases of diaphragmatic stimulation requiring lead revision, and one coronary sinus dissection without pericardial effusion. There were no cases of pneumothorax, pocket haematoma requiring evacuation, or infection. CONCLUSION: The triple lead via cephalic vein technique is safe and effective when used as a first approach for CRT device implantation. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Bassey Ussen; Paramdeep S Dhillon; Lisa Anderson; Ian Beeton; Mike Hickman; Mark M Gallagher Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: David H Birnie; Ratika Parkash; Derek V Exner; Vidal Essebag; Jeffrey S Healey; Atul Verma; Benoit Coutu; Teresa Kus; Iqwal Mangat; Felix Ayala-Paredes; Pablo Nery; George Wells; Andrew D Krahn Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Johannes B van Rees; Mihály K de Bie; Joep Thijssen; C Jan Willem Borleffs; Martin J Schalij; Lieselot van Erven Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Derek V Exner; David H Birnie; Gordon Moe; Bernard Thibault; François Philippon; Jeffrey S Healey; Anthony S L Tang; Éric Larose; Ratika Parkash Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: J C J Res; J A de Priester; A A van Lier; C L J M van Engelen; P N A Bronzwaer; P-H Tan; M Visser Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Jonathan C Hsu; Nitish Badhwar; Byron K Lee; Vasanth Vedantham; Zian H Tseng; Gregory M Marcus Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: S Cazeau; P Ritter; S Bakdach; A Lazarus; M Limousin; L Henao; O Mundler; J C Daubert; J Mugica Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 1994-11 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Julia Vogler; Anne Geisler; Nils Gosau; Samer Hakmi; Stephan Willems; Tienush Rassaf; Reza Wakili; Elif Kaya Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.379