Key result
Left ventricular lead implantation at a phrenic stimulation site using specific threshold criteria was safe, with non-reprogrammable phrenic stimulation occurring in 3.7% of patients vs 1.1% at non-PS sites.
Why the study?
Is left ventricular lead implantation at a phrenic stimulation site safe and effective in patients undergoing CRT device implantation?
Cohort (n=211)
Is left ventricular lead implantation at a phrenic stimulation site safe and effective in patients undergoing CRT device implantation?
Implanting a left ventricular lead at a phrenic stimulation site using specific threshold criteria is safe and effective, avoiding the need to abandon otherwise optimal pacing sites.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Protocol may enable CRT despite phrenic stimulation; leaves open long-term efficacy versus alternatives in randomized trials.
AIMS: Phrenic stimulation (PS) is a major limiting factor for both left ventricular (LV) lead placement and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery. We have developed a protocol allowing for LV lead implantation at a PS site based on specific criteria regarding phrenic and LV acute capture thresholds. The present study examined long-term outcomes in patients treated using this protocol. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 211 consecutive patients underwent CRT device implantation. The procedure was successful in 201 patients. Leads were implanted at a PS site in 27 patients (PS patients) and a non-PS site in 174 patients (non-PS patients). Left ventricular leads were placed at a PS site only on the following conditions: no PS at ≤3.5 V/0.5 ms, LV threshold ≤1.5 V, and a PS/LV threshold ratio >4. The mean PS threshold decreased (5.1 ± 1.6 vs. 2.8 ± 1.6 V, P < 0.001) and the mean LV threshold remained stable (1.0 ± 0.7 vs. 0.9 ± 0.8 V, P = 0.6) in PS patients over the 16 ± 9 month follow-up. Only one PS patient experienced non-reprogrammable PS and required a re-operation. Seven PS patients required very low LV channel output programming without the usual safety margin of twice the LV threshold amplitude or three times the pulse width. However, 100% LV capture was shown in those patients during daily activity. Non-reprogrammable PS occurred in 2 of the 174 non-PS patients. CONCLUSION: Our strategy for LV lead implantation at a PS site was found to result in long-term safe and effective outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jastrzębski et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Cardiac resynchronization therapy indication (n=211). Left ventricular lead implantation at a phrenic stimulation site vs. Left ventricular lead implantation at a non-phrenic stimulation site was evaluated on Non-reprogrammable phrenic stimulation. Left ventricular lead implantation at a phrenic stimulation site using specific threshold criteria was safe, with non-reprogrammable phrenic stimulation occurring in 3.7% of patients vs 1.1% at non-PS sites.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: