Home  About us  Contact
 

Ventricular Pacing Lead (ventricular + pacing_lead)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Long-term Stability of Endocardial Left Ventricular Pacing Leads Placed via the Coronary Sinus

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 9 2009
GRACE LIN M.D.
Background: Left ventricular endocardial pacing leads placed via the coronary sinus (CS) are increasingly implanted to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); however, the long-term stability of these leads is unknown. We sought to determine the implant success and long-term stability of CS leads in our single center experience. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent CRT via implantation of the CS lead between January 1999 and December 2005 were included. Pacing thresholds at implant and during long-term follow-up were reviewed and the rate of acute (within 24 hours of implant) and chronic (>24 hours) lead failure was determined. Results: A total of 512 patients (mean age 68 ± 12 years; 409 [80%] male) underwent CRT device implantation and were included. The CS lead implantation was successful on the initial implantation in 487 patients (95%) and subsequently successful in six patients (24%) in whom initial attempts were unsuccessful. Acute lead failure occurred in 25 patients (5.1%) and was most commonly due to persistent extra-cardiac stimulation. The rate of chronic lead failure was 4% in the first year and remained stable during long-term follow-up. The CS lead pacing thresholds remained stable with only minimal increase (1.42 ± 0.85 V/0.42 ± 0.25 ms vs 1.51 ± 1.05 V/0.47 ± 0.29 ms; P = 0.04). Conclusions: Placement of a left ventricular pacing lead via the CS is feasible and safe in the vast majority of patients. Once placed, the CS leads remain stable with excellent pacing thresholds over the longer term. [source]

Percutaneous Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Via The Azygous Vein In A Patient With Superior Vena Cava Occlusion

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2008
M.R.C.P., RAVINDU HASMUKH KAMDAR B.Sc. (Hons)
Occlusion of the superior vena cava (SVCO) makes implantation of permanent pacemakers challenging and difficult. We describe an extended application of a Medtronic Attain (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) guide catheter (a tool designed for delivery of left ventricular pacing leads into the coronary sinus) for delivery of a right ventricular pacing lead via the azygous vein in a 72-year-old woman with SVCO secondary to long-term central venous hemodialysis catheters. This approach allowed the use of an endocardial pacing lead, implantation under local anesthesia, and conventional positioning of the pacemaker generator in the pectoral region in a patient with SVCO. [source]

Removal of Coronary Sinus Intima by a Guidewire during Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 10 2007
MASAMITSU ADACHI M.D., Ph.D.
Previously, complications associated with the placement of the left ventricular pacing lead were reported in 1.9,6% of cases. We describe a case with a stripping of venous intima from the coronary sinus by a guidewire during a left ventricular lead implantation. Judging from this case, the firm guidewire and coronary catheter should not be used within the coronary sinus. [source]

Diagnosis and Management of Inadvertently Placed Pacing and ICD Leads in the Left Ventricle: A Multicenter Experience and Review of the Literature

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2000
BERRY M. VAN GELDER
Three patients from different centers with pacemaker or ICD leads endocardially implanted in the left ventricle are described. All leads, two ventricular pacing leads and one ICD lead, were inserted through a patent foramen ovale or an atrial septum defect. The diagnosis was made 9 months. 14 months, and 16 years, respectively, after implantation. All patients had right bundle branch block configuration during ventricular pacing. Chest X ray was suggestive of a left-sided positioned lead except in the ICD patient. Diagnosis was confirmed with echocardiography in all patients. One patient with a ventricular pacing lead presented with a transient ischcmic attack at 1-month postimplantation. During surgical repair of the atrial septum defect 14 months later, the lead was extracted and thrombus was attached to the lead despite therapy with aspirin. The other patients were asymptomatic without anticoagulation (9 months and 16 years after implant). No thrombus was present on the ICD lead at the time of the cardiac transplantation in one patient. We reviewed 27 patients with permanent leads described in the literature. Ten patients experienced thromboembolic complications, including three of ten patients on antiplatelet therapy. The lead was removed in six patients, anticoagulation with warfarin was effective for secondary prevention in the four remaining patients. In the asymptomatic patients, the lead was removed in five patients. In the remaining patients, 1 patient was on warfarin, 2 were on antiplatelet therapy, and in 3 patients the medication was unknown. After malposition was diagnosed, three additional patients were treated with warfarin. In conclusion, if timely removal of a malpositioned lead in the left ventricle is not preformed, lifelong anticoagulation with warfarin can be recommended as the first choice therapy and lead extraction reserved in case of failure or during concomitant surgery. [source]

Malpositioned ventricular pacing lead in the left ventricle

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY, Issue 2 2000
Edward A. Geiser M.D.
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Percutaneous Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Via The Azygous Vein In A Patient With Superior Vena Cava Occlusion

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2008
M.R.C.P., RAVINDU HASMUKH KAMDAR B.Sc. (Hons)
Occlusion of the superior vena cava (SVCO) makes implantation of permanent pacemakers challenging and difficult. We describe an extended application of a Medtronic Attain (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) guide catheter (a tool designed for delivery of left ventricular pacing leads into the coronary sinus) for delivery of a right ventricular pacing lead via the azygous vein in a 72-year-old woman with SVCO secondary to long-term central venous hemodialysis catheters. This approach allowed the use of an endocardial pacing lead, implantation under local anesthesia, and conventional positioning of the pacemaker generator in the pectoral region in a patient with SVCO. [source]

Diagnosis and Management of Inadvertently Placed Pacing and ICD Leads in the Left Ventricle: A Multicenter Experience and Review of the Literature

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2000
BERRY M. VAN GELDER
Three patients from different centers with pacemaker or ICD leads endocardially implanted in the left ventricle are described. All leads, two ventricular pacing leads and one ICD lead, were inserted through a patent foramen ovale or an atrial septum defect. The diagnosis was made 9 months. 14 months, and 16 years, respectively, after implantation. All patients had right bundle branch block configuration during ventricular pacing. Chest X ray was suggestive of a left-sided positioned lead except in the ICD patient. Diagnosis was confirmed with echocardiography in all patients. One patient with a ventricular pacing lead presented with a transient ischcmic attack at 1-month postimplantation. During surgical repair of the atrial septum defect 14 months later, the lead was extracted and thrombus was attached to the lead despite therapy with aspirin. The other patients were asymptomatic without anticoagulation (9 months and 16 years after implant). No thrombus was present on the ICD lead at the time of the cardiac transplantation in one patient. We reviewed 27 patients with permanent leads described in the literature. Ten patients experienced thromboembolic complications, including three of ten patients on antiplatelet therapy. The lead was removed in six patients, anticoagulation with warfarin was effective for secondary prevention in the four remaining patients. In the asymptomatic patients, the lead was removed in five patients. In the remaining patients, 1 patient was on warfarin, 2 were on antiplatelet therapy, and in 3 patients the medication was unknown. After malposition was diagnosed, three additional patients were treated with warfarin. In conclusion, if timely removal of a malpositioned lead in the left ventricle is not preformed, lifelong anticoagulation with warfarin can be recommended as the first choice therapy and lead extraction reserved in case of failure or during concomitant surgery. [source]