Premium
Left Ventricular Pacing through Coronary Sinus Is Feasible and Safe for Patients with Prior Tricuspid Valve Intervention
Author(s) -
SIDERIS SKEVOS,
DRAKOPOULOU MARIA,
OIKONOMOPOULOS GEORGE,
GATZOULIS KONSTANTINOS,
STAVROPOULOS GEORGE,
LIMPERIADIS DIMITRIS,
TOUTOUZAS KONSTANTINOS,
TOUSOULIS DIMITRIS,
KALLIKAZAROS IOANNIS
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.12815
Subject(s) - medicine , ventricular pacing , coronary sinus , cardiology , tricuspid valve , cardiac pacing , intervention (counseling) , heart failure , psychiatry
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.