Permanent pacing via the coronary sinus after tricuspid valve replacement was successful in all eight patients, yielding stable median thresholds of 1.5 V and no complications over 20.5 months.
Does permanent pacemaker implantation via the coronary sinus provide stable electrical performance and safety in patients after tricuspid valve replacement?
Coronary sinus pacing is a feasible and safe alternative for permanent pacing after tricuspid valve replacement, offering stable electrical parameters while avoiding the risks of transvalvular leads.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation are common after tricuspid valve replacement (TVR). Conventional transvalvular right ventricular pacing carries a risk of prosthetic valve dysfunction, whereas epicardial pacing is limited by surgical complexity, high pacing thresholds, and reduced lead durability. Coronary sinus (CS) pacing represents a potential alternative; however, data following TVR remain limited. We retrospectively analyzed eight patients who underwent PPM implantation via the CS after TVR at our center. Demographic characteristics, procedural details, and pacing parameters were collected. Electrical performance (pacing threshold, lead impedance, and pacing percentage) was assessed during follow-up. PPM implantation via the CS was successfully performed in all patients (median age: 61 years; 87.5% female). Seven patients underwent bioprosthetic TVR and one underwent mechanical TVR. The median interval between surgery and PPM implantation was 7 days. Mean procedure and fluoroscopy times were 66.5 ± 25.2 minutes and 13.3 ± 6.8 minutes, respectively. No acute or periprocedural complications occurred. During a median follow-up of 20.5 months, pacing thresholds and lead impedance remained stable (median threshold: 1.5 V, IQR: 1.0–2.25; median impedance: 846 Ω, IQR: 470–979), with a median ventricular pacing percentage of 82%. No lead-related complications were observed. CS pacing is a feasible and safe strategy for patients requiring PPM implantation after TVR, providing stable electrical performance while avoiding the risks associated with transvalvular and epicardial leads. This approach may be particularly valuable in patients with mechanical prostheses and should also be considered in selected bioprosthetic valve recipients. Larger studies are required to confirm long-term outcomes. After a median follow-up of 20.5 months (IQR: 10-28), the median pacing threshold was 1.5 V (IQR: 1.0-2.25), the median impedance was 846 Ω (IQR: 470-979), and the pacing percentage was 82% (IQR: 24-100) (Table 3). In six patients, the CS lead was implanted in the lateral cardiac vein, while in two patients it was implanted in the anterior interventricular vein. No phrenic nerve capture was observed in any patient and no significant change in LVEF was 6 detected during follow-up (mean EF: 55.0 ± 5.5% vs. 56.4 ± 5.9%)
Menemencioğlu et al. (Sun,) reported a other. Permanent pacing via the coronary sinus after tricuspid valve replacement was successful in all eight patients, yielding stable median thresholds of 1.5 V and no complications over 20.5 months.