Key result
Transseptal endocardial LV leads linked to an ~8% LVEF increase after failed coronary sinus implants.
Why the study?
Does transseptal endocardial left ventricular lead implantation improve LV systolic function and functional status safely in CRT patients with failed transvenous access?
Observational (n=4)
No
Does transseptal endocardial left ventricular lead implantation improve LV systolic function and functional status safely in CRT patients with failed transvenous access?
Absolute Event Rate: 32% vs 24%
p-value: p=0.023
Transseptal endocardial left ventricular lead implantation appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CRT in high surgical risk patients when standard coronary sinus implantation fails.
May offer rescue option after failed CS CRT; leaves open prospective validation of safety and efficacy.
INTRODUCTION: In patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), failure rate to implant the left ventricular (LV) lead by the traditional trans-venous approach is 4-8%. Surgical epicardial implantation is considered as an alternative, but this technique is not without morbidity. Evidence from case documentation and from small trial batches demonstrated the viability of endocardial LV lead implantation where surgical epicardial lead placement is not applicable. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four patients were implanted with endocardial LV lead using the transseptal atrial approach after unsuccessful transvenous implantation. Implantation of an endocardial active fixation LV leads was successful in all patients with stable electrical parameters immediately after implantation and over the follow-up period. All patients received anticoagulation therapy in order to target the international normalized ratio of 2.5-3.5 and have not experienced any thromboembolic, hemorrhagic events, or infection. RESULTS: Follow-up echocardiography indicated significant improvement of LV systolic function (24 + 4.9 to 32 + 5.1 %, P = 0.023) with a notable improvement of the functional status. CONCLUSIONS: Endocardial left ventricular lead implantation can be a valuable and safe alternative technique to enable LV stimulation in high surgical risk patients where standard coronary sinus implant is unsuccessful.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neuhoff et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=4). Transseptal left ventricular endocardial pacing vs. Baseline was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p=0.023). Transseptal endocardial left ventricular lead implantation significantly improved mean left ventricular ejection fraction from 24% to 32% in patients with failed standard coronary sinus implants.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: