Key result
Mini-thoracotomy epicardial LV leads show comparable clinical and echocardiographic improvements to transvenous placement.
Why the study?
The feasibility and safety of a mini-thoracotomy approach for left ventricular lead placement in biventricular pacing after ineffective or unlikely successful transvenous procedures was uncertain.
Does epicardial left ventricular lead placement via mini-thoracotomy provide comparable safety and efficacy to transvenous placement in patients with end-stage heart failure?
Cohort (n=138)
Does epicardial left ventricular lead placement via mini-thoracotomy provide comparable safety and efficacy to transvenous placement in patients with end-stage heart failure?
Epicardial lead placement via mini-thoracotomy is a feasible and safe rescue procedure for biventricular pacing when the transvenous approach fails or is unlikely to succeed.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mini-thoracotomy may support LV pacing after transvenous failure; leaves open comparative efficacy versus standard approaches in randomized trials.
Transvenous coronary sinus lead placement is currently the standard approach for left ventricular pacing. The aim of this study is to assess whether a mini-thoracotomy approach would be feasible and safe when used for cases in which transvenous procedures were ineffective or judged unlikely to succeed. Biventricular pacing was performed in 138 consecutive patients with 47 patients undergoing a mini-thoracotomy procedure. NYHA status, quality of life, electrical and echocardiographic data were assessed in the two groups over a follow-up period of 17.6+/-4.2 weeks. There was no significant difference in the preoperative characteristics in both groups other than a greater prevalence of renal failure and previous cardiac surgery among the surgical patients. The mean procedure time was significantly longer in the transvenous group. No significant differences were noted in the immediate or long-term pacing parameters. Two mortalities were observed in the surgical group >2 weeks following the procedure. During the follow-up period, we noted a comparable improvement in the echocardiographic parameters, QRS duration and NYHA status with both approaches. Our results suggest that even when performed on high-risk patients, epicardial lead placement through a mini-thoracotomy is beneficial and feasible as a 'rescue' procedure after a failed transvenous approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Atoui et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in end-stage heart failure (n=138). Mini-thoracotomy approach for epicardial left ventricular lead placement vs. Transvenous coronary sinus lead placement was evaluated on NYHA status, quality of life, electrical and echocardiographic data. Epicardial lead placement through a mini-thoracotomy yielded comparable improvements in echocardiographic parameters, QRS duration, and NYHA status compared to the standard transvenous approach.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: