Saori Asada1, Nobuhiro Nishii2, Takayoshi Shinya3, Akihito Miyoshi1, Yoshimasa Morimoto1, Masakazu Miyamoto1, Koji Nakagawa1, Kazufumi Nakamura1, Hiroshi Morita2, Hiroshi Ito1. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama city, Okayama, Japan. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Therapeutics, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama city, Okayama, Japan. 3. Department of Pediatric Radiology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama city, Okayama, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: High-risk patients can be identified by preprocedural computed tomography (CT) before lead extraction. However, CT evaluation may be difficult especially for lead tip identification due to artifacts in the leads. Selective right ventriculography (RVG) may enable preprocedural evaluation of lead perforation. We investigated the efficacy of RVG for identifying right ventricular (RV) lead perforation compared with CT in patients who underwent lead extraction. METHODS: Ninety-five consecutive patients who were examined by thin-section non-ECG-gated multidetector CT and RVG before lead extraction were investigated retrospectively. Newly recognized pericardial effusion after lead extraction was used as a reference standard for lead perforation. We analyzed the prevalence of RV lead perforation diagnosed by each method. The difference in the detection rates of lead perforation by RVG and CT was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 115 RV leads in the 95 patients, lead perforation was diagnosed for 35 leads using CT, but the leads for 29 (83%) of those 35 leads diagnosed as lead perforation by CT were shown to be within the right ventricle by RVG. Three patients with 5 leads could not be evaluated by CT due to motion artifacts. The diagnostic accuracies of RVG and CT were significantly different (p < 0.001). There was no complication of pericardial effusion caused by RV lead extraction. CONCLUSION: RVG for identification of RV lead perforation leads to fewer false-positives compared to non-ECG-gated CT. However, even in cases in which lead perforation is diagnosed, most leads may be safely extracted by transvenous lead extraction.
PURPOSE: High-risk patients can be identified by preprocedural computed tomography (CT) before lead extraction. However, CT evaluation may be difficult especially for lead tip identification due to artifacts in the leads. Selective right ventriculography (RVG) may enable preprocedural evaluation of lead perforation. We investigated the efficacy of RVG for identifying right ventricular (RV) lead perforation compared with CT in patients who underwent lead extraction. METHODS: Ninety-five consecutive patients who were examined by thin-section non-ECG-gated multidetector CT and RVG before lead extraction were investigated retrospectively. Newly recognized pericardial effusion after lead extraction was used as a reference standard for lead perforation. We analyzed the prevalence of RV lead perforation diagnosed by each method. The difference in the detection rates of lead perforation by RVG and CT was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 115 RV leads in the 95 patients, lead perforation was diagnosed for 35 leads using CT, but the leads for 29 (83%) of those 35 leads diagnosed as lead perforation by CT were shown to be within the right ventricle by RVG. Three patients with 5 leads could not be evaluated by CT due to motion artifacts. The diagnostic accuracies of RVG and CT were significantly different (p < 0.001). There was no complication of pericardial effusion caused by RV lead extraction. CONCLUSION:RVG for identification of RV lead perforation leads to fewer false-positives compared to non-ECG-gated CT. However, even in cases in which lead perforation is diagnosed, most leads may be safely extracted by transvenous lead extraction.
Authors: Mohammed N Khan; George Joseph; Yaariv Khaykin; Khaled M Ziada; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Luigi P Badano; Victor Mor-Avi; Jonathan Afilalo; Anderson Armstrong; Laura Ernande; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Steven A Goldstein; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Patrizio Lancellotti; Denisa Muraru; Michael H Picard; Ernst R Rietzschel; Lawrence Rudski; Kirk T Spencer; Wendy Tsang; Jens-Uwe Voigt Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Christian Balabanoff; Cristopher E Gaffney; Eduard Ghersin; Yoji Okamoto; Roger Carrillo; Joel E Fishman Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2014-08-23
Authors: David A Hirschl; Vineet R Jain; Hugo Spindola-Franco; Jay N Gross; Linda B Haramati Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Christopher A Rajkumar; Simon Claridge; Tom Jackson; Jonathan Behar; Jonathan Johnson; Manav Sohal; Sana Amraoui; Arjun Nair; Rebecca Preston; Jaswinder Gill; Ronak Rajani; Christopher A Rinaldi Journal: Europace Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Ezio Soldati; Giulio Zucchelli; Andrea Di Cori; Luca Segreti; Raffaele De Lucia; Gianluca Solarino; Alberto Balbarini; Mario Marzilli; Mario Mariani Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-10-23 Impact factor: 29.983