Literature DB >> 28491583

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

Sana Amraoui1, Louis Labrousse1, Jean-Luc Jansens2, Manav Sohal3, Pierre Bordachar1, Philippe Ritter1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillation; Cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillation; Epicardial lead; Heart failure; LV, left ventricle; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; Lead endocarditis; NYHA, New York Heart Association; Robotic approach

Year:  2015        PMID: 28491583      PMCID: PMC5419672          DOI: 10.1016/j.hrcr.2015.06.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep        ISSN: 2214-0271


× No keyword cloud information.

Introduction

KEY TEACHING POINTS In some cases, conventional transvenous cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillation (CRT-D) implantation cannot be performed, so alternative approaches are needed. Thus, surgical epicardial implantation is mandatory. We used a minimally invasive procedure for a complete epicardial CRT reimplantation in a patient without superior venous access available. The whole procedure was robotically guided by the da Vinci Robotic System. This robotic CRT-D implantation was safe and minimally invasive, with significant advantages in the absence of transvenous access. It offers a new alternative when conventional approaches are not suitable. Device infection is one of the most feared complications in patients implanted with a cardiac device.1, 2 In some cases, conventional transvenous reimplantation cannot be performed, so alternative approaches are needed.3, 4

Case report

A 67-year-old man with dilated cardiomyopathy (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class III and left bundle branch block) was implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillation (CRT-D) device and was a good responder (NYHA class I and increase in left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] from 30% to 45%). After 2 episodes of device infection and 2 CRT-D extractions, a new device was required. As superior venous access was no longer available (thrombosis on 1 side, recent infection on the other), an epicardial approach was used. The whole procedure was minimally invasive and robotically guided by the da Vinci Robotic System (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA).7, 8 The patient was tilted to the right side, in order to get more intrathoracic space to facilitate left ventricle (LV) access (Figure 1). The patient was intubated with a double-lumen endotracheal Clarins device for single and right selected lung ventilation (left lung exclusion), mandatory to access the LV epicardium. The left chest was insufflated, allowing the introduction of a binocular camera and instruments via 3 transthoracic ports of 10 mm diameter in the anterior axillary line (the fifth intercostal space for the camera, the third and seventh for instruments). The ports were held by 3 robotic arms remotely controlled by the surgeon. The entire LV free wall was exposed. The leads were introduced through the superior port and the instruments were placed in the intrathoracic space through the 2 dedicated ports. This allowed manipulation and placement of the epicardial leads. The 2 LV leads (custom-made Medtronic 9022 leads; Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN) were placed at the lateral LV wall and fixed at the pericardium without suture (like a button of a shirt), after achieving correct sensing/pacing thresholds (<1.5 V at 0.4 ms) (Figure 2). The leads were consequently outside the pericardial space but the active and steroid-eluding part of the leads was in close contact with the myocardium. It was possible to use more readily available steroid-eluting epicardial leads (Medtronic 4968; Medtronic Inc) with the da Vinci system but sutures are required for lead fixation. A defibrillation coil was sutured onto the pericardium along the lateral LV wall, and another was introduced through a small pericardial incision over the anterior right ventricular wall (Transvene Medtronic leads), into the pericardial space (Figure 3). The atrial lead was placed at the right atrial appendage (again without fixation to the myocardium). All leads were tunneled to an epigastric device pocket and connected to the CRT device. A pleural drain was placed in the left pleural space at the end of the procedure and removed after 4 hours, as no persistent bleeding was present. Hospital discharge was possible after 4 days.
Figure 1

Da Vinci Robotic System for cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillation implantation: a minimally invasive approach. A, B: The patient was tilted to the right side. The binocular camera and instruments were introduced via 3 transthoracic ports of 10 mm diameter. C: Instruments were held by 3 robotic arms. D: Robotic arms could be controlled remotely at distance by the surgeon.

Figure 2

Left ventricular (LV) lead implantation. A: Three small pericardial incisions were performed at the left lateral wall with the 2 dedicated instruments to place the first LV lead. B: Each bipolar lead (custom-made Medtronic 9022 leads) has 2 circles at the extremity (asterisks) carrying an active and steroid-eluting electrode (arrow). C: Each circle of the lead is held by the instruments. D: Each circle of the lead is introduced through 2 pericardial incisions and then fixed at the pericardium without suture (like a button of a shirt). E: This method allows good contact of the electrode to the LV myocardium without the use of a needle. F: The second circle at the extremity of the lead is also fixed in the same way.

Figure 3

Chest radiograph of the patient with a cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillation (CRT-D) device implanted by robotic approach. A: Posteroanterior view; B: lateral view: 2 epicardial custom-made Medtronic 9022 left ventricular leads (arrows) were placed at the lateral wall and tunneled to an epigastric CRT-D device. A right atrial lead and 2 defibrillation coils were tunneled to a CRT-D device localized in the subgastric area. ANT = anterior; LL = left lateral; RA = right atrium.

The 20 J defibrillation test was successfully performed 3 months after implantation. At 2 years, the patient was a responder to CRT (NYHA class I, LVEF 45%, brain natriuretic peptide 73 pg/mL), without signs of recurrent infection. Sensing and pacing thresholds were stable (1.25 V/0.4 ms for 1 LV lead and 0.5 V/0.4 ms for the other one, 0.9 mV atrial sensing with 99% ventricular pacing). Surgical implantation of epicardial LV leads has been shown to be feasible, with good electrical stability. It can be performed by a left thoracotomy. However, with this invasive approach, the area of exposed LV is limited for a CRT-D implant, and even worse with a mini-thoracotomy. Alternatively, sternotomy allows unlimited choice of epicardial pacing site since the entire LV is exposed. However, this is a complicated, invasive approach with a low acceptance for patients and longer hospitalization. In centers with the robotic system, guided LV lead implantation seems to be an alternative allowing epicardial CRT-D implantation with a minimally invasive approach and shorter hospitalization.

Discussion

This robotic CRT-D implantation was safe and minimally invasive, with significant advantages in the absence of transvenous access: no sternotomy, no thoracotomy, no intravascular material, optimal shock vectors, LV implantation not dependent on coronary sinus anatomy, short hospitalization, and lack of any requirement for radiograph fluoroscopy. Furthermore, this technique minimizes the difficulties of possible future cardiac interventions as no material is sutured onto the myocardium: the whole system is placed on the pericardium except for the anterior right ventricular shock electrode (today, this electrode is placed outside the pericardial space in the retrosternal fat). This epicardial device implantation offers a new alternative when conventional approaches are not suitable.

KEY TEACHING POINTS

In some cases, conventional transvenous cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillation (CRT-D) implantation cannot be performed, so alternative approaches are needed. Thus, surgical epicardial implantation is mandatory.

We used a minimally invasive procedure for a complete epicardial CRT reimplantation in a patient without superior venous access available. The whole procedure was robotically guided by the da Vinci Robotic System.

This robotic CRT-D implantation was safe and minimally invasive, with significant advantages in the absence of transvenous access. It offers a new alternative when conventional approaches are not suitable.

  10 in total

1.  Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure.

Authors:  William T Abraham; Westby G Fisher; Andrew L Smith; David B Delurgio; Angel R Leon; Evan Loh; Dusan Z Kocovic; Milton Packer; Alfredo L Clavell; David L Hayes; Myrvin Ellestad; Robin J Trupp; Jackie Underwood; Faith Pickering; Cindy Truex; Peggy McAtee; John Messenger
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-06-13       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Robotic-enhanced biventricular resynchronization: an alternative to endovenous cardiac resynchronization therapy in chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Jean-Luc Jansens; Maurice Jottrand; Nicolas Preumont; Eric Stoupel; Didier de Cannière
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Minimally invasive left ventricular epicardial lead placement: surgical techniques for heart failure resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  José L Navia; Fernando A Atik; Richard A Grimm; Mario Garcia; Pablo Ruda Vega; Ulf Myhre; Randall C Starling; Bruce L Wilkoff; David Martin; Penny L Houghtaling; Eugene H Blackstone; Delos M Cosgrove
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA).

Authors:  Michele Brignole; Angelo Auricchio; Gonzalo Baron-Esquivias; Pierre Bordachar; Giuseppe Boriani; Ole-A Breithardt; John Cleland; Jean-Claude Deharo; Victoria Delgado; Perry M Elliott; Bulent Gorenek; Carsten W Israel; Christophe Leclercq; Cecilia Linde; Lluís Mont; Luigi Padeletti; Richard Sutton; Panos E Vardas; Jose Luis Zamorano; Stephan Achenbach; Helmut Baumgartner; Jeroen J Bax; Héctor Bueno; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Cetin Erol; Robert Fagard; Roberto Ferrari; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ales Linhart; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Massimo F Piepoli; Piotr Ponikowski; Per Anton Sirnes; Juan Luis Tamargo; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Paulus Kirchhof; Carina Blomstrom-Lundqvist; Luigi P Badano; Farid Aliyev; Dietmar Bänsch; Helmut Baumgartner; Walid Bsata; Peter Buser; Philippe Charron; Jean-Claude Daubert; Dan Dobreanu; Svein Faerestrand; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Jean-Yves Le Heuzey; Hercules Mavrakis; Theresa McDonagh; Jose Luis Merino; Mostapha M Nawar; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Burkert Pieske; Lidija Poposka; Frank Ruschitzka; Michal Tendera; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Carol M Wilson
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 29.983

5.  Transvenous lead extraction: Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus on facilities, training, indications, and patient management: this document was endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA).

Authors:  Bruce L Wilkoff; Charles J Love; Charles L Byrd; Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Roger G Carrillo; George H Crossley; Laurence M Epstein; Richard A Friedman; Charles E H Kennergren; Przemyslaw Mitkowski; Raymond H M Schaerf; Oussama M Wazni
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 6.343

6.  Continued rise in rates of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections in the United States: temporal trends and causative insights.

Authors:  Andrew Voigt; Alaa Shalaby; Samir Saba
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 1.976

7.  Endurance and performance of two different concepts for left ventricular stimulation with bipolar epicardial leads in long-term follow-up.

Authors:  H Burger; J Kempfert; A van Linden; Z Szalay; M Schoenburg; T Walther; T Ziegelhoeffer
Journal:  Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2011-07-25       Impact factor: 1.827

8.  2012 EHRA/HRS expert consensus statement on cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: implant and follow-up recommendations and management.

Authors:  Jean-Claude Daubert; Leslie Saxon; Philip B Adamson; Angelo Auricchio; Ronald D Berger; John F Beshai; Ole Breithard; Michele Brignole; John Cleland; David B Delurgio; Kenneth Dickstein; Derek V Exner; Michael Gold; Richard A Grimm; David L Hayes; Carsten Israel; Christophe Leclercq; Cecilia Linde; Joann Lindenfeld; Bela Merkely; Lluis Mont; Francis Murgatroyd; Frits Prinzen; Samir F Saba; Jerold S Shinbane; Jagmeet Singh; Anthony S Tang; Panos E Vardas; Bruce L Wilkoff; Jose Luis Zamorano
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 6.343

9.  16-year trends in the infection burden for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the United States 1993 to 2008.

Authors:  Arnold J Greenspon; Jasmine D Patel; Edmund Lau; Jorge A Ochoa; Daniel R Frisch; Reginald T Ho; Behzad B Pavri; Steven M Kurtz
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 24.094

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

Authors:  Ganesh S Kamath; Sandhya Balaram; Andrew Choi; Olga Kuteyeva; Naga Vamsi Garikipati; Jonathan S Steinberg; Suneet Mittal
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 1.976

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  A hybrid subcutaneous and epicardial biventricular implantable cardiac defibrillator with an abdominal generator.

Authors:  Mohamad Raad; Kyle Miletic; Arfaat Khan; Waddah Maskoun
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2022-07-11
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.