Key result
Transseptal LV endocardial pacing shows feasibility after failed coronary sinus lead implantation.
Why the study?
Is left ventricular endocardial lead pacing via transseptal approach feasible in a patient with failed coronary sinus lead implantation?
Case Report (n=1)
Is left ventricular endocardial lead pacing via transseptal approach feasible in a patient with failed coronary sinus lead implantation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Transseptal left ventricular endocardial pacing is a feasible alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy when conventional coronary sinus lead implantation fails.
Biventricular resynchronization therapy is recommended for patients presenting with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and ventricular dyssynchrony. Implantation of a left ventricular (LV) lead fails in 5%–10% of patients in whom cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is attempted. Conventional approach is not feasible due to anatomic abnormalities in coronary sinus (CS) and its branches or due to high pacing thresholds or phrenic nerve stimulation. We present a case of a 62 year old male in which, LV lead implantation through CS was failed and LV lead implantation was done via transseptal approach. We described that LV endocardial pacing is an alternative to CS pacing and needs a long-term follow up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Algazzar et al. (2018) conducted a case report in Left ventricular dysfunction and ventricular dyssynchrony with failed coronary sinus lead implantation (n=1). Left ventricular endocardial pacing via transseptal approach was evaluated on Feasibility of LV endocardial pacing. Left ventricular endocardial pacing via a transseptal approach was feasible in a patient with failed coronary sinus lead implantation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: