Fu, Hai‐Xia

Introduction: Surgically implanted epicardial left ventricular (eLV) lead has been used as an alternative approach when implantation of transvenous LV (tLV) lead in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has failed. Recent literatures noted similarities in clinical response between tLV and eLV-CRT patients. However, comparison between CRT patients with ischemic (ICM) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is currently lacking in eLV-CRT patients. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that DCM patients respond better to eLV-CRT than ICM patients. Methods: Of 1038 patients who underwent tLV-CRT implantation at UCSD and Mayo Clinics between 2002 and 2013, 44 (Age 63±15, 28M) had failed tLV lead placement and received eLV-CRT. Electronic Medical Records of these patients were reviewed. NYHA class and echocardiograph were assessed before and after successful CRT implantation. Results: Following eLV-CRT implantation, improvements were noted in LVEF (26% vs. 31%, p < 0.01), NYHA class (2.9 vs. 2.3, p < 0.01) and LVESD (57mm vs. 52mm, p = 0.03) in the study cohort. In patients with DCM (n=19), the NYHA class (3.0 vs. 2.3, p = 0.01), LVEF (24% vs. 30%, p = 0.02) and LVESD (57mm vs. 52mm, p = 0.04) had significantly improved following CRT implantation compared to baseline (figures). No statistically significant changes in NYHA class, LVEF and LVESD were observed in patients with ICM (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: In this two-center study, eLV-CRT patients with DCM benefited significantly after CRT, as compared to ICM patients. Although larger scaled studies are needed, eLV-CRT may be considered a viable alternative to tLV-CRT, especially in patients with DCM.

AbstractIntroductionThe outcomes of repeated cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extraction have not been well studied. We sought to determine the indications, outcomes, and safety of repeated lead extraction procedures.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted using data from two medical centers, including 38 patients who had undergone two or more lead extraction procedures compared to 439 patients who had a single procedure. The electronic medical records and procedural databases were reviewed to determine the indications, procedural characteristics, and outcomes. The outcomes of the first procedure were compared to the outcomes of subsequent procedures.ResultsThe 5‐year cumulative probability of a repeated extraction procedure was 11% (95% confidence interval, 7%–15%). In 439 patients who underwent single lead extractions, 72% had device and lead related infections as the procedure indication compared to 39% for 38 patients who underwent repeated extraction (P < 0.001). The mean duration from device reimplant to repeated extraction procedures was 63 ± 48 months. Ninety‐eight percent of the leads were removed completely in repeated procedures, similar to the 95% success rate of the first procedure (P = 0.51). There was no significant difference in major complication rate in the first or repeated extractions (2.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.79).ConclusionsRepeated transvenous lead extraction is not uncommon. It had a high success rate comparable to that of the initial procedure and was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events.

BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can be achieved via a transvenous or epicardial route. A surgically implanted epicardial LV (eLV) lead is used after a standard transvenous LV (tLV) lead implantation has failed. However, studies of clinical outcomes in patients with eLV leads and comparisons of outcome between tLV and eLV‐CRT are sparse. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare clinical response between tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT, as well as to understand the differences within the eLV‐CRT population.MethodsForty‐four patients received eLV‐CRT following unsuccessful attempts of tLV‐CRT implantation between 2002 and 2013 at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Mayo Clinics. These patients were matched for age, gender, and etiology of cardiomyopathy in a 1:2 ratio with a cohort of patients who received tLV‐CRT during the same time period.ResultsDuring a mean follow‐up of 57 months, similar clinical outcomes and survival rate were noted between tLV and eLV‐CRT patients (all P > 0.05). Within the eLV‐CRT group, dilated cardiomyopathy patients had significant improvement in New York Heart Association class and ejection fraction (both P < 0.05), while ischemic cardiomyopathy patients did not (both P > 0.05). eLV‐CRT patients with nonanterior lead location had significantly improved survival (P < 0.001). There was also a trend for improved survival in those with nonapical lead location (P = 0.09).ConclusionIn this case‐matched two‐centered study, comparable improvements were noted in patients with tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT. Operators should target nonanterior and nonapical locations during eLV‐CRT implantation. Use of eLV‐CRT should be considered a viable alternative for CRT candidates.

BackgroundWe aimed to determine the long‐term outcomes of percutaneous lead extraction and stent placement in patients with pacemaker‐induced superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome.MethodsThe study retrospectively screened patients who underwent lead extraction followed by central vein stent implantation at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA), from January 2005 to December 2012, to identify the patients with pacemaker‐induced SVC syndrome. Demographic, clinical, and follow‐up characteristics of those patients were collected from electronic medical records.ResultsSix cases were identified. The mean (standard deviation) age was 56 (15) years (male, 67%). All patients had permanent dual‐chamber pacemakers, with a mean 11‐year history of pacemaker placement. The entire device system was explanted in five patients; one patient had a 21‐year‐old pacemaker lead that could not be removed. Eight stents were implanted in six patients: five patients had one stent, one patient had three. A new pacemaker system was reimplanted through the stented vein in five patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients, without any complication. Symptoms rapidly resolved in all patients after stent deployment. The mean follow‐up duration was 48 months (range, 10–100 months). Three patients remained symptom free. Reintervention with percutaneous balloon venoplasty was successful in three patients with symptom recurrence.ConclusionPercutaneous stent implantation after lead removal followed by reimplantation of leads is a feasible alternative therapy for pacemaker‐induced SVC syndrome, although some cases may require repeat intervention.

Percutaneous Lead Revision for Cardiac PerforationIntroductionCardiac perforation is an infrequent but potentially life‐threatening complication associated with placement of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of percutaneous lead revision in patients who had lead perforation of the myocardium after CIED placement.Methods and ResultsWe reviewed records of 1,458 patients who underwent CIED lead extraction or repositioning. Of these, 31 (2.1%) had the procedure performed for lead perforation as a complication of CIED placement. Demographic, clinical, and follow‐up characteristics of the patients were analyzed. Mean (SD) patient age was 65 (23) years. Cardiac perforation was detected within 24 hours after implantation in 9 patients, within 1 month in 17, and greater than 1 month in 5. Pericardiocentesis was performed with a pigtail drainage catheter in place before the lead revision in 17 patients (55%) who had pericardial effusion, with or without hemodynamic compromise. All culprit leads were successfully managed with percutaneous lead removal (n = 3 [10%]), new lead placement (n = 12 [38%]), or lead repositioning (n = 16 [52%]). Of the 17 patients with pericardiocentesis before the reoperation, none had tamponade develop; in contrast, 3 of the remaining 14 patients had tamponade develop and required urgent pericardiocentesis. All patients survived without requiring open chest surgery.ConclusionPercutaneous removal or repositioning of the perforating lead is feasible and appears effective. Placement of a prophylactic pericardial drain catheter may reduce the incidence of urgent pericardiocentesis during or after a procedure.