Key result
Left ventricular sensing by an IS-1 LV lead connected to the RV port of CIEDs was feasible and maintained stable performance over a median 41 months, with correct VT/VF detection.
Why the study?
Is ventricular sensing by a left ventricular lead reliable in patients with CIEDs when right ventricular sensing is not feasible or preferred?
Observational (n=37)
Is ventricular sensing by a left ventricular lead reliable in patients with CIEDs when right ventricular sensing is not feasible or preferred?
Ventricular sensing via a left ventricular lead is a feasible and reliable alternative in transvenous devices when right ventricular sensing is problematic.
May offer sensing alternative when RV options fail; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Ventricular sensing in transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) occurs conventionally from the right ventricular (RV) channel, though it evolved from epicardial sensing both in pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to observe the reliability of left ventricular (LV) sensing by transvenous leads placed in coronary veins. METHODS: LV leads were used for sensing and arrhythmia detection in clinical situations where placement of an RV lead across the tricuspid valve was either not preferred or not feasible, or RV signal was unsuitable for arrhythmia detection, or in the event of sensing failure of an RV lead under advisory in cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRTD) recipients. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients had an IS-1 LV lead connected to the RV port of CIEDs (17 pacemakers, 5 cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker [CRTP], 2 ICDs, and 13 CRTDs). Along a median 41 (25-67) months follow-up, lead performance remained stable; there were neither undersensing nor oversensing of non-cardiac signals. VT/VF were correctly detected and terminated by ATP and shocks (one and three patients, respectively); no inappropriate arrhythmia detection. Device reprogramming occurred in four CRTD recipients because of transient counting the QRS (short intervals) when paced in LV-only, and in two with T-wave oversensing. CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular sensing by an LV lead is feasible in transvenous devices. Sensing programmability is an unmet need: to fix RV lead sensing issues in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients at no risk of infection (no pocket opening); to avoid interaction with the tricuspid valve; to avoid lead redundancy in the vasculature. Moreover, it will be mandatory owing to the loss of lead interchangeability due to the adoption of DF-4 and quadripolar leads.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Biffi et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Patients requiring CIEDs with unsuitable or unfeasible right ventricular lead sensing (n=37). Left ventricular sensing by transvenous leads placed in coronary veins was evaluated on Reliability of left ventricular sensing (lead performance, undersensing, oversensing, arrhythmia detection). Left ventricular sensing by an IS-1 LV lead connected to the RV port of CIEDs was feasible and maintained stable performance over a median 41 months, with correct VT/VF detection.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: