Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2016
Left Ventricular Pacing through Coronary Sinus Is Feasible and Safe for Patients with Prior Tricuspid Valve Intervention.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sideris Skevos, Drakopoulou Maria, Oikonomopoulos George, Gatzoulis Konstantinos, Stavropoulos George, Limperiadis Dimitris, Toutouzas Konstantinos, Tousoulis Dimitris, Kallikazaros Ioannis
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the presence of tricuspid valve intervention, right ventricular lead implantation is associated with the potential risk of tricuspid valve malfunction leading to a tricuspid regurgitation. Few cases have been reported with successful left ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus (CS) after tricuspid valve replacement or repair. In this retrospective study, we present the long-term clinical outcomes of 17 patients who underwent CS lead implantation and left ventricular pacing.
METHODS: Seventeen consecutive patients referred to our institution with an indication of postprocedural pacemaker (PM) implantation after tricuspid valve intervention were retrospectively included in the study. The indication for device implantation in all patients was atrial fibrillation with a symptomatic pause ≥ 3.0 seconds. Thus, all devices implanted were ventricular rate responsive (VVIR).
RESULTS: All device implantations were successful and uncomplicated. Mean operation time was 60 ± 8 minutes. Mean fluoroscopy time was 8.3 ± 2.1 minutes. Mean R-wave sensing was 7.5 ± 2.0 mV with a mean slew rate of 2.2 V/s. A mean pacing threshold of 1.9 ± 0.3 V/0.4 ms was accepted as patients were not PM-dependent. The pacing impedance was 743.5 ± 109.71 Ohm. At 2-year follow-up, pacing sensing, threshold, and impedance values were unchanged and no lead dislodgement has been noted.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with tricuspid valve intervention, left ventricular pacing might be the treatment of choice for permanent ventricular pacing, with all the advantages of the endovenous route as a minimally invasive approach.
METHODS: Seventeen consecutive patients referred to our institution with an indication of postprocedural pacemaker (PM) implantation after tricuspid valve intervention were retrospectively included in the study. The indication for device implantation in all patients was atrial fibrillation with a symptomatic pause ≥ 3.0 seconds. Thus, all devices implanted were ventricular rate responsive (VVIR).
RESULTS: All device implantations were successful and uncomplicated. Mean operation time was 60 ± 8 minutes. Mean fluoroscopy time was 8.3 ± 2.1 minutes. Mean R-wave sensing was 7.5 ± 2.0 mV with a mean slew rate of 2.2 V/s. A mean pacing threshold of 1.9 ± 0.3 V/0.4 ms was accepted as patients were not PM-dependent. The pacing impedance was 743.5 ± 109.71 Ohm. At 2-year follow-up, pacing sensing, threshold, and impedance values were unchanged and no lead dislodgement has been noted.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with tricuspid valve intervention, left ventricular pacing might be the treatment of choice for permanent ventricular pacing, with all the advantages of the endovenous route as a minimally invasive approach.