Home  About us  Contact
 

LV Lead Placement (lv + lead_placement)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

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]

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]