Long-term cerebral thromboembolic complications of transapical endocardial resynchronization therapy

Purpose: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established therapeutic option in selected heart failure patients (pts). However, the transvenous left ventricular (LV) lead implantation remains ineffectual in a considerable number of pts. Transapical LV (TALV) lead implantation is an alternative minimally invasive, surgical, endocardial implantation technique. The aim of the present prospective study is to determine the long-term outcome, including the cerebral thromboembolic complications, of pts

Alternative Techniques for Left Ventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important treatment modality for a well-defined subgroup of heart failure patients. Coronary sinus (CS) lead placement is the first-line clinical approach but the insertion is unsuccessful in about 5-10% of the patients. In recent years, the number of CRT recipients and the considerable need for left ventricular (LV) lead revisions increased enormously. Numerous techniques and technologies have been specifically developed to provide alternatives for the CS LV pacing. Currently, the surgical access is most frequently used as a second choice by either minithoracotomy or especially the video-assisted thoracoscopy. The transseptal or transapical endocardial LV lead implantations are being developed but there are no longer follow-up data in larger patient cohorts. These new techniques should be reserved for patients failing conventional or surgical CRT implants. In the future, randomized studies are needed to asses the potential benefits of some alternative LV pacing techniques and other new technologies for LV lead placement are expected

New method for cardiac resynchronization therapy: Transapical endocardial lead implantation for left ventricular free wall pacing

Coronary sinus lead placement for transvenous left ventricular (LV) pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has a significant failure rate at implant and a significant dislocation rate during follow-up. For these patients, epicardial pacing lead implantation is the most frequently used alternative. The aim of this case report is to describe

Feasibility of percutaneous implantation of transapical endocardial left ventricular pacing electrode for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Failure of coronary sinus lead implantation for resynchronization therapy requires alternative approaches. For such events we have developed a transapical implantation technique as a feasible alternative. We report the outcome of this technique and its evolution from a minithoracotomy to a percutaneous approach. Twenty patients underwent alternative resynchronization therapy with transapical endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing lead implantation in a multicentre, international study between October 2007 and March 2010. Eighteen patients underwent minithoracotomy and transapical puncture under direct observation. Two recent patients had transthoracic echocardiography- guided percutaneous apical puncture to enter the LV cavity. A 19 or 21 ga needle and two-stage Seldinger dilatation with 4 and 7 Fr sheaths were then used to introduce the lead. In the two patients with closed-chest insertion of the electrode there was no puncture related bleeding or lung damage. Lead dislocation occurred in two minithoracotomy patients. Repositioning was performed without reopening the pleural cavity. One patient developed right-sided implanted cardiac defibrillator lead endocarditis requiring complete system removal. Twelve patients have >1 year follow-up; all have sustained and significant improvement in LV dimensions (diastolic Delta 4.2 +/- 2.9, systolic Delta 7.2 +/- 5.8 mm), ejection fraction (Delta 9.5 +/- 9.6%), and functional status (Delta 1.1 +/- 0.3). Transapical placement of LV endocardial pacing lead is an effective alternative strategy for cardiac resynchronization. A closed-chest, percutaneous approach is feasible and should offer even less invasive intervention

Comparison of the Efficacy of Two Surgical Alternatives for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Trans-Apical versus Epicardial Left Ventricular Pacing

Background: Epicardial pacing lead implantation is the currently preferred surgical alternative for left ventricular (LV) lead placement. For endocardial LV pacing, we developed a fundamentally new surgical method. The trans-apical lead implantation is a minimally invasive technique that provides access to any LV segments. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the outcome of patients undergoing either trans-apical endocardial or epicardial LV pacing. Methods: In group I, 11 end-stage heart failure (HF) patients (mean age 59.7 +/- 7.9 years) underwent trans-apical LV lead implantation. Epicardial LV leads were implanted in 12 end-stage HF patients (group II; mean age 62.8 +/- 7.3 years). Medical therapy was optimized in all patients. The following parameters were compared during an 18-month follow-up period: LV ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), LV end-systolic diameter, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) function Results: Nine out of 11 patients responded favorably to the treatment in group I (LVEF 39.7 +/- 12.5 vs 26.0 +/- 7.8%, P < 0.01; LVEDD 70.4 +/- 13.6 mm vs 73.7 +/- 10.5 mm, P = 0.002; NYHA class 2.2 +/- 0.4 vs 3.5 +/- 0.4, P < 0.01) and eight out of 12 in group II (LVEF 31.5 +/- 11.5 vs 26.4 +/- 8.9%, P = < 0.001; NYHA class 2.7 +/- 0.4 vs 3.6 +/- 0.4, P < 0.05). During the follow-up period, one patient died in group I and three in group II. There was one intraoperative LV lead dislocation in gr Conclusions: Our data suggest that trans-apical endocardial LV lead implantation is an alternative to epicardial LV pacing. (PACE 2012;35:124-130