The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2005
Minimally invasive left ventricular epicardial lead placement: surgical techniques for heart failure resynchronization therapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Navia José L, Atik Fernando A, Grimm Richard A, Garcia Mario, Vega Pablo Ruda, Myhre Ulf, Starling Randall C, Wilkoff Bruce L, Martin David, Houghtaling Penny L, Blackstone Eugene H, Cosgrove Delos M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Epicardial lead placement for biventricular pacing is often a rescue procedure after failed coronary sinus cannulation. This study aims to determine perioperative and early postoperative outcome of minimally invasive left ventricular lead placement as a management strategy for heart failure, comparing minithoracotomy and endoscopic approaches.
METHODS: From October 2002 through October 2003, 41 patients underwent minimally invasive left ventricular lead placement, 23 (56%) by minithoracotomy and 18 (44%) endoscopically. Thirty-one (76%) were males, 19 (46%) had previous cardiac surgery, 21 (51%) had ischemic cardiomyopathy, 17 (41%) were in New York Heart Association class III or IV, and 28 (65%) had implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.
RESULTS: There were no in-hospital deaths, intraoperative complications, or failures to implant the left ventricular lead. Median operative time was longer for the endoscopic approach (188 minutes) than for minithoracotomy (151 minutes; p = 0.006). Preoperatively, the endoscopic group had more mitral regurgitation (median, 2.5 versus 1.0, respectively; p = 0.009). QRS duration was shorter postoperatively (mean change from preoperative, -32 +/- 24 ms; p < 0.0001); this change was unrelated to surgical approach. Impedance also was less postoperatively (mean change, -490 +/- 300 ohms; p < 0.0001), and the change was unrelated to surgical approach. Changes were greater the larger their preoperative values (p < 0.0001). Threshold increased with follow-up time (adjusted p < 0.0001), but impedance decreased (adjusted p = 0.0009); these trends were similar for both approaches. No changes were evident in left ventricular dimensions.
CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive left ventricular epicardial lead placement is safe and effective, offering selection of the best pacing site with minimal morbidity; it can be considered a primary option for resynchronization therapy.
METHODS: From October 2002 through October 2003, 41 patients underwent minimally invasive left ventricular lead placement, 23 (56%) by minithoracotomy and 18 (44%) endoscopically. Thirty-one (76%) were males, 19 (46%) had previous cardiac surgery, 21 (51%) had ischemic cardiomyopathy, 17 (41%) were in New York Heart Association class III or IV, and 28 (65%) had implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.
RESULTS: There were no in-hospital deaths, intraoperative complications, or failures to implant the left ventricular lead. Median operative time was longer for the endoscopic approach (188 minutes) than for minithoracotomy (151 minutes; p = 0.006). Preoperatively, the endoscopic group had more mitral regurgitation (median, 2.5 versus 1.0, respectively; p = 0.009). QRS duration was shorter postoperatively (mean change from preoperative, -32 +/- 24 ms; p < 0.0001); this change was unrelated to surgical approach. Impedance also was less postoperatively (mean change, -490 +/- 300 ohms; p < 0.0001), and the change was unrelated to surgical approach. Changes were greater the larger their preoperative values (p < 0.0001). Threshold increased with follow-up time (adjusted p < 0.0001), but impedance decreased (adjusted p = 0.0009); these trends were similar for both approaches. No changes were evident in left ventricular dimensions.
CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive left ventricular epicardial lead placement is safe and effective, offering selection of the best pacing site with minimal morbidity; it can be considered a primary option for resynchronization therapy.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedCardiac Pacing, ArtificialEchocardiography, DopplerFemaleHeart FailureHeart RateHumansIntensive Care UnitsLeadLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresMitral Valve InsufficiencyMonitoring, IntraoperativePacemaker, ArtificialPostoperative ComplicationsRoboticsVideo Recording