Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With Isolated Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava From a Right-Sided Approach: Technical Considerations and Follow-Up Outcome

Slittable sheath supported right ventricular pacing lead implantation in persistent left superior vena cava with absent right superior vena cava: a case report

BACKGROUND

Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is the most common variant of systemic venous drainage. In the absence of the right superior vena cava (RSVC), implantation of a right ventricular pacing lead may be challenging. Therefore specific implantation techniques and experiences in PLSVC are worth reporting.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case report of a 90-year-old Caucasian female patient with PLSVC during single chamber pacemaker implantation due to the third-degree atrioventricular block. With common implantation techniques, we did not even reach the right ventricle. Therefore slittable CPS Direct ™ Universal sheath was employed to overcome the acute angle from PLSVC to tricuspid valve and ensure more fixation stability for longer 100-cm right ventricular lead placement.

CONCLUSION

This case demonstrates safe implantation of 100-cm long right ventricular bipolar active fixation pacing lead using common slittable CPS Direct ™ Universal sheath after failed attempts with "C" and "J" stylet shaped electrode. This sheath provides different angle towards tricuspid valve and more fixation stability in patient with PLSVC and absent connection to right atrium.

Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava with Absent Right Superior Vena Cava and Discrete Subaortic Stenosis Diagnosed in a Patient with Sick Sinus Syndrome: A Case Report and Brief Review of the Literature

A persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is the most frequent anomaly of the venous drainage system. While both a right and left superior vena cava (SVC) are usually present, a unique, left-sided SVC, also known as an isolated PLSVC, accounts for only 10–20% of cases. It is frequently associated with arrhythmias and other congenital cardiac anomalies. Though it is usually an asymptomatic condition, it may pose significant problems whenever central venous access is needed. We report a case of an isolated PLSVC that was diagnosed incidentally during pacemaker implantation for sinus node dysfunction. The venous anomaly was associated with subvalvular aortic stenosis determined by a subaortic membrane; this particular association of congenital cardiovascular anomalies is a rare finding, with only a few cases reported in the literature. We aim to highlight the clinical and practical implications of this condition, as well as to discuss the embryonic development and diagnostic methods of this congenital defect.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices in patients with persistent left superior vena cava-A single center experience

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on cardiac implantable electronic device implantation (CIED) in patients with persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC).

OBJECTIVE

To describe the outcomes of implanting CIEDs with a focus on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with PLSVC.

METHODS

We identified all patients with a PLSVC that underwent CIED implantation from December 2008 until February 2019 at our institution by querying the electronic medical record (n = 34). We then identified controls in a 3:1 fashion (n = 102) by matching on device type (CRT vs non-CRT). Procedure success, complications, fluoroscopy and procedural time were recorded. Outcomes were compared using a two-way analysis of variance test and conditional regression modeling for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 34 patients with PLSVC underwent 38 procedures. Four patients underwent dual chamber system implantation followed by a subsequent upgrade to CRT. Thirteen patients underwent CRT implantation: one was implanted via the right subclavian while the rest were implanted via the PLSVC. Left ventricular (P = .06). Procedure and fluoroscopy times were significantly higher in the PLSVC as compared with the control group (97.7 vs 66.1 minute, P < .001 and 18.1 minute vs 8.7 minutes, P = .005, respectively).

CONCLUSION

CIED implant in patients with PLSVC is feasible but technically more challenging and appears to be associated with higher risk of right ventricular lead dislodgment.