Chin C Lee1, Khuyen Do1, Sati Patel1, Steven K Carlson1, Tomas Konecny1, Philip M Chang2, Rahul N Doshi3. 1. Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo Street, Suite 322, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. 2. University of Florida Health Congenital Heart Center, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo Street, Suite 322, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. Rahul.Doshi@med.usc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Transvenous right ventricular pacing has traditionally been avoided after surgical tricuspid valve repair or replacement because of possible valvular dysfunction. Epicardial pacing has been used but it requires surgical thoracotomy and has higher lead failure rates when compared to transvenous pacing. We evaluated the lead stability and clinical outcomes in patients with isolated coronary sinus (CS) lead due to relative contraindication to transvenous pacing from prior tricuspid valve (TV) surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively examined a single-center cohort of 34 patients with TV disease and/or surgery who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation with a left ventricular CS lead as the only ventricular pacing lead (to avoid crossing the TV). The clinical outcome, echocardiographic data, and pacing thresholds were evaluated at follow-up. RESULTS: We implanted 19 patients with a single-CS lead and 15 patients with dual-CS leads. The average left ventricular ejection fraction was 56 ± 13% prior to lead implantation and remained stable at 2-year follow-up. The tricuspid regurgitation remained mild at follow-up. The average lead pacing threshold was 1.2 ± 0.6 V × ms at implant and 1.1 ± 0.4 V × ms at 2-year follow-up (P = 0.39). For patients with dual-CS leads, the pacing threshold was 1.2 ± 0.7 V × ms at implant and 1.1 ± 0.5 V × ms at 2-year follow-up (P = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ventricular pacing entirely through the CS is an effective and minimally invasive method that provides stable pacing for patients with prior TV surgery in whom transvenous lead placement either is not possible or is relatively contraindicated.
PURPOSE: Transvenous right ventricular pacing has traditionally been avoided after surgical tricuspid valve repair or replacement because of possible valvular dysfunction. Epicardial pacing has been used but it requires surgical thoracotomy and has higher lead failure rates when compared to transvenous pacing. We evaluated the lead stability and clinical outcomes in patients with isolated coronary sinus (CS) lead due to relative contraindication to transvenous pacing from prior tricuspid valve (TV) surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively examined a single-center cohort of 34 patients with TV disease and/or surgery who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation with a left ventricular CS lead as the only ventricular pacing lead (to avoid crossing the TV). The clinical outcome, echocardiographic data, and pacing thresholds were evaluated at follow-up. RESULTS: We implanted 19 patients with a single-CS lead and 15 patients with dual-CS leads. The average left ventricular ejection fraction was 56 ± 13% prior to lead implantation and remained stable at 2-year follow-up. The tricuspid regurgitation remained mild at follow-up. The average lead pacing threshold was 1.2 ± 0.6 V × ms at implant and 1.1 ± 0.4 V × ms at 2-year follow-up (P = 0.39). For patients with dual-CS leads, the pacing threshold was 1.2 ± 0.7 V × ms at implant and 1.1 ± 0.5 V × ms at 2-year follow-up (P = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ventricular pacing entirely through the CS is an effective and minimally invasive method that provides stable pacing for patients with prior TV surgery in whom transvenous lead placement either is not possible or is relatively contraindicated.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Left ventricular venous lead; Tricuspid valve repair; Tricuspid valve replacement; Tricuspid valve surgery
Authors: Patrick M McCarthy; Sunil K Bhudia; Jeevanantham Rajeswaran; Katherine J Hoercher; Bruce W Lytle; Delos M Cosgrove; Eugene H Blackstone Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Claudia Ypenburg; Rutger J van Bommel; C Jan Willem Borleffs; Gabe B Bleeker; Eric Boersma; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Leslie A Saxon; Brian Olshansky; Kent Volosin; Jonathan S Steinberg; Byron K Lee; Gery Tomassoni; Thomas Guarnieri; Anupama Rao; Patrick Yong; Elizabeth Galle; Jill Leigh; Fred Ecklund; Michael R Bristow Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-02-27
Authors: Grace Lin; Rick A Nishimura; Heidi M Connolly; Joseph A Dearani; Thoralf M Sundt; David L Hayes Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-05-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Juyong B Kim; Daniel M Spevack; Paul A Tunick; John R Bullinga; Itzhak Kronzon; Larry A Chinitz; Harmony R Reynolds Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2007-07-02 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Janne J Jokinen; Anu K Turpeinen; Otto Pitkänen; Mikko J Hippeläinen; Juha E K Hartikainen Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.330