Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2008
Primary failure of cardiac resynchronization therapy: what are the causes and is it worth considering a second attempt? A single-centre experience.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Fatemi Marjaneh, Etienne Yves, Castellant Philippe, Blanc Jean-Jacques
Аннотация
AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been validated as an effective treatment for patients with drug-refractory congestive heart failure and left bundle branch block. Failure of implantation of the left ventricular (LV) lead has been reported in 10-15% of patients. The goal of our study was to determine the causes of failure and the success rate following a repeat procedure by the same operators.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed our last 100 consecutive cases of CRT before July 2007. The procedure was considered as unsuccessful if it had to be interrupted before the placement of the LV lead in an appropriate position, because of patient's haemodynamic status or if the procedure duration exceeded 3 h. Cardiac resynchronization therapy was unsuccessful in 10 patients (5 men, mean age: 72 +/- 11 years). The causes of failure of CRT were as follows: no target vein other than the great cardiac vein (n = 5), coronary sinus dissection (n = 1), and a lateral vein too small to provide a stable location for the LV lead (n = 4). A second procedure was attempted in four patients and was successful in all cases.
CONCLUSION: In our study results, failure of CRT was observed in 10% of the patients. A second procedure can be attempted in a selected group of patients and is associated with a high success rate.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed our last 100 consecutive cases of CRT before July 2007. The procedure was considered as unsuccessful if it had to be interrupted before the placement of the LV lead in an appropriate position, because of patient's haemodynamic status or if the procedure duration exceeded 3 h. Cardiac resynchronization therapy was unsuccessful in 10 patients (5 men, mean age: 72 +/- 11 years). The causes of failure of CRT were as follows: no target vein other than the great cardiac vein (n = 5), coronary sinus dissection (n = 1), and a lateral vein too small to provide a stable location for the LV lead (n = 4). A second procedure was attempted in four patients and was successful in all cases.
CONCLUSION: In our study results, failure of CRT was observed in 10% of the patients. A second procedure can be attempted in a selected group of patients and is associated with a high success rate.