García Guerrero JJ, Fernández de la Concha Castañeda J, Doblado Calatrava M, Redondo Méndez Á, Lázaro Medrano M, Merchán Herrera A. Left ventricular endocardial pacing in the real world: Five years of experience at a single center.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2018;
42:153-160. [PMID:
30569458 DOI:
10.1111/pace.13591]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2018] [Revised: 11/29/2018] [Accepted: 12/04/2018] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
A left ventricular (LV) endocardial lead implant to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is feasible when a conventional implant failed due to anatomical or technical issues or when the venous implant was performed but the patient did not respond to the therapy.
METHODS
Data about the implantation procedure (age, sex, clinical characteristics, anticoagulant use, and previous devices), patient characteristics (indication, technique used, lead model, complications), and follow-up (clinical and echocardiographic outcome, LV lead electrical measurements) were analyzed for all CRT systems implanted using LV endocardial lead, due to failed conventional implant or nonresponse, between April 2011 and November 2016.
RESULTS
Thirty-five patients were implanted with an active fixation LV endocardial lead during the study period, without significant complications. There were no dislodgements or severe complications related to the implant procedure in the follow-up period (36 ± 20 months) and a high percentage of patients responded to therapy, as assessed by several indicators.
CONCLUSIONS
An LV endocardial lead implant was feasible when the conventional technique had previously failed or was not effective. A high rate of response was achieved without any significant complications.
Collapse