			Home About us Contact

LV Lead (lv + lead)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Terms modified by LV Lead

lv lead placement

lv lead position

Selected Abstracts

Electrocardiogram-Based Algorithm to Predict the Left Ventricular Lead Position in Recipients of Cardiac Resynchronization Systems

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2009
SYLVAIN PLOUX M.D.
Introduction: Biventricular pacing is associated with various electrocardiographic patterns depending on the position of the left ventricular (LV) lead. We aimed to develop an electrocardiogram-based algorithm to predict the position of the LV lead. Methods: The algorithm was developed in 100 consecutive recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems. QRS axis, morphology, and polarity were analyzed with a view to define the specific electrocardiographic characteristics associated with the various LV lead positions. The algorithm was prospectively validated in 50 consecutive CRT device recipients. Results: The first analysis of the algorithm was the QRS morphology in V1. A positive R wave in V1 suggested LV lateral or posterior wall stimulation. A QS pattern was specific of anterior LV leads. In the presence of an R wave in V1, V6 was analyzed to distinguish between an inferior and anterior LV lead. Inferior leads were never associated with a positive V6. To differentiate between lateral and posterior positions, we analyzed the pattern in V2. Lateral leads were associated with an R morphology in V1 and a negative V2. Posterior leads were associated with an R morphology in V1 and V2. The algorithm allowed a reliable distinction between an inferior or anterior and a lateral or posterior lead position in 90% of patients. Inferior, anterior, lateral, and posterior positions were reliably distinguished in 80% of patients. Conclusion: This algorithm predicted the position of the LV lead with a high sensitivity and predictive value. [source]

Opening an Occluded Subclavian Vein with a Screw-Like Flexible Hollow Guide-wire and Venoplasty

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 10 2007
SETH JOSEPH WORLEY M.D.
Patients with existing internal cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) often require upgrading to a biventricular ICD for treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF). Placement of a left ventricular (LV) lead can be technically challenging in the best of circumstances. A subclavian vein stenosis or occlusion related to previously placed leads adds a major obstacle to a successful implant. We report a technique of implanting an LV lead from the same side as the existing ICD system despite complete occlusion of the subclavian vein. [source]

Upgrading Patients with Chronic Defibrillator Leads to a Biventricular System and Reducing Patient Risk: Contralateral LV Lead Placement

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 9 2006
DAVID J. FOX
Increasing numbers of patients with indwelling single- or dual- chamber internal cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) will require upgrading of an existing system to a biventricular ICD providing cardiac resynchronization with back-up defibrillation. Upgrading, usually by the addition of a new left ventricular (LV) lead, can be technically challenging with central venous occlusion or stenosis often being the main obstacle to a successful procedure. We report a new technique of implanting a LV lead from the contralateral side to the existing ICD system to minimize the peri- and postoperative risk to the patient. [source]

Programmable Multiple Pacing Configurations Help to Overcome High Left Ventricular Pacing Thresholds and Avoid Phrenic Nerve Stimulation

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 12 2005
OSNAT GUREVITZ
Background: High left ventricular pacing (LVP) thresholds and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) are common problems with cardiac resynchronization (CRT). Newer systems capable of multiple LVP configurations may help overcome these problems without the need for reoperation. Methods: CRT systems capable of multiple LVP configurations (Guidant models H155 and H145) were implanted in 43 patients (study group). An additional 49 patients (control group) received CRT systems (Guidant, Medtronic, Biotronik, St. Jude Medical, various models) lacking this feature. Results: Overall, acute high (,2.5 V/0.5 ms) LVP thresholds were encountered in 13 (30%) of the study group, and 25 (50%) of control group patients (P = 0.03). PNS was encountered in 5 (12%) of the study group and 12 (24%) of control group patients (P = 0.13). All cases of high LVP thresholds and PNS in the study group were managed by switching to a different LVP configuration, while high thresholds remained in control group patients, and PNS was managed by replacing the lead. The CS lead was successfully placed in a lateral branch in 95% of study group, compared to only 77% of control group patients (P = 0.004). Conclusions: Multiple LVP configurations were clinically useful in a significant number of patients undergoing CRT system implantation by helping to overcome high LVP thresholds and PNS, and by providing more flexibility in placing the LV lead. [source]

Simple Access to the Coronary Venous System for Left Ventricular Pacing

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 9 2003
DANY E. SAYAD
Implantation of the LV lead for biventricular pacing can be challenging, time consuming, and often requires extensive fluoroscopy time. A conventional diagnostic 5 Fr left Amplatz catheter was used to cannulate the coronary sinus in 15 consecutive patients undergoing implantation of a biventricular pacemaker. When the coronary sinus was cannulated, the proximal end of the Amplatz catheter was cut and the coronary sinus sheath was passed over the Amplatz catheter that was then removed. Coronary sinus cannulation was achieved in all 15 patients with a mean fluoroscopy time of3.34 ± 1.9 minutes. Subsequent implantation of a biventricular pacemaker was successful and free of complications in all the 15 patients. (PACE 2003; 26:1856,1858) [source]

Initial Clinical Experience with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Utilizing a Magnetic Navigation System

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2007
PETER GALLAGHER M.D.
Introduction: The placement of left ventricular (LV) leads during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) involves many technical difficulties. These difficulties increase procedural times and decrease procedural success rates. Methods and Results: A total of 50 patients with severe cardiomyopathy (mean LV ejection fraction was 21 ± 6%) and a wide QRS underwent CRT implantation. Magnetic navigation (Stereotaxis, Inc.) was used to position a magnet-tipped 0.014, guidewire (CronusÔ guidewire) within the coronary sinus (CS) vasculature. LV leads were placed in a lateral CS branch, either using a standard CS delivery sheath or using a "bare-wire" approach without a CS delivery sheath. The mean total procedure time was 98.1 ± 29.1 minutes with a mean fluoroscopy time of 22.7 ± 15.1 minutes. The mean LV lead positioning time was 10.4 ± 7.6 minutes. The use of a delivery sheath was associated with longer procedure times 98 ± 32 minutes vs 80 ± 18 minutes (P = 0.029), fluoroscopy times 23 ± 15 minutes vs 13 ± 4 minutes (P = 0.0007) and LV lead positioning times 10 ± 6 minutes vs 4 ± 2 minutes (P = 0.015) when compared to a "bare-wire" approach. When compared with 52 nonmagnetic-assisted control CRT cases, magnetic navigation reduced total LV lead positioning times (10.4 ± 7.6 minutes vs 18.6 ± 18.9 minutes; P = 0.005). If more than one CS branch vessel was tested, magnetic navigation was associated with significantly shorter times for LV lead placement (16.2 ± 7.7 minutes vs 36.4 ± 23.4 minutes; P = 0.004). Conclusions: Magnetic navigation is a safe, feasible, and efficient tool for lateral LV lead placement during CRT. Magnetic navigation during CRT allows for control of the tip direction of the CronusÔ 0.014, guidewire using either a standard CS delivery sheath or "bare-wire" approach. Although there are some important limitations to the 0.014, CronusÔ magnetic navigation can decrease LV lead placement times compared with nonmagnetic-assisted control CRT cases, particularly if multiple CS branches are to be tested. [source]

Achieving Permanent Left Ventricular Pacing,Options and Choice

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 11 2009
ERNEST W. LAU M.D.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) requires permanent left ventricular (LV) pacing. Coronary sinus (CS) lead placement is the first line clinical approach but can be difficult or impossible; may suffer from a high LV pacing threshold, phrenic nerve stimulation, and dislodgement; and produces epicardial LV pacing, which is less physiological and hemodynamically effective and potentially more proarrhythmic than endocardial LV pacing. CS leads can usually be extracted with direct traction but may require use of extraction sheaths. Half of CS side branches previously used for lead placement may be unusable for the same purpose after successful lead extraction, and 30% of CS lead reimplantation attempts may fail due to exhaustion of side branches. Surgical epicardial LV lead placement is the more invasive second line approach, produces epicardial LV pacing, and has a lead failure rate of ,15% in 5 years. Transseptal endocardial LV lead placement is the third line approach, can be difficult to achieve, but produces endocardial LV pacing. The major concern with transseptal endocardial LV leads is systemic thromboembolism, but the risk is unknown and oral anticoagulation is advised. Among the new CRT recipients in the United States and Western Europe between 2003 and 2007, 22,798 patients may require CS lead revisions, 9,119 patients may have no usable side branches for CS lead replacement, and 1,800 patients may require surgical epicardial LV lead revision in the next 5 years. The CRT community should actively explore and develop alternative approaches to LV pacing to meet this anticipated clinical demand. [source]