Why the study?
Does left ventricular lead implantation through the coronary sinus provide safe and efficient pacing in patients with mechanical prosthetic tricuspid valve replacement and RV inaccessibility?
Does left ventricular lead implantation through the coronary sinus provide safe and efficient pacing in patients with mechanical prosthetic tricuspid valve replacement and RV inaccessibility?
Left ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus is a feasible and safe alternative for patients requiring pacing who have mechanical tricuspid valves precluding standard right ventricular lead placement.
May offer an alternative for RV-inaccessible patients after mechanical TV replacement; leaves open need for prospective safety data.
BACKGROUND: Although transvenous right ventricular (RV) endocardial lead placement is routine practice in clinical pacing, RV inaccessibility in certain clinical situations mandates the search for other sites. HYPOTHESIS: This study is aimed to verify whether left ventricular lead through coronary sinus is safe and efficient. METHODS: Based on a retrospective analysis of a single-center series of 4 patients with inaccessibility for RV pacing, we report on the feasibility and reliability of coronary sinus (CS) pacing via left ventricular (LV) lead, which usually is used in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Four patients with valvular heart disease and bradycardias post-mechanical prosthetic tricuspid valve replacement were studied. The LV leads were implanted into the lateral vein or great cardiac vein of the CS, and all parameters were programmed postprocedure. RESULTS: In all cases procedures yielded favorable parameters, with 1 CS dissection. At long-term follow-up, there was no threshold increase or lead dislocation. CONCLUSIONS: LV lead implantation through the CS appears safe and efficacious in patients with inaccessibility for RV pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zha et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: