Key result
Percutaneous endocardial LV lead extraction proves safe and feasible in small initial series.
Why the study?
Long-term clinical and safety data for biventricular pacing through endocardial left ventricular leads are not known.
Is percutaneous extraction of endocardial left ventricular leads safe and feasible in patients with adverse events?
Case Report (n=4)
Is percutaneous extraction of endocardial left ventricular leads safe and feasible in patients with adverse events?
Percutaneous extraction of endocardial left ventricular leads appears to be a safe and feasible procedure in patients experiencing adverse events.
May support extraction in select adverse-event cases; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) involves the placement of an epicardial left ventricular (LV) lead through the coronary venous tree. However, alternative approaches of delivering CRT have been sought for patients who fail to respond to conventional methods or for those where coronary venous anatomy is unfavourable. Biventricular pacing through an endocardial LV lead has potential advantages; however, the long-term clinical and safety data are not known. CASE SUMMARY: This article details a case series of four patients with endocardial LV leads; three of these for previously failed conventional CRT and a fourth for an inadvertently placed defibrillator lead. DISCUSSION: We describe the clinical course and adverse events associated with left-sided leads and subsequently describe the safe and feasible method of percutaneous extraction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Behar et al. (2020) conducted a case report in Patients with endocardial left ventricular leads (n=4). Percutaneous extraction was evaluated on Clinical course, adverse events, and feasibility of percutaneous extraction. Percutaneous extraction of endocardial left ventricular leads was described as a safe and feasible method in a case series of four patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: