Premium
Left ventricular endocardial pacing in the real world: Five years of experience at a single center
Author(s) -
García Guerrero Juan J.,
Fernández de la Concha Castañeda Joaquín,
Doblado Calatrava Manuel,
Redondo Méndez Ángel,
Lázaro Medrano Manuel,
Merchán Herrera Antonio
Publication year - 2019
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.13591
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiac resynchronization therapy , implant , lead (geology) , single center , cardiology , surgery , anticoagulant therapy , heart failure , ejection fraction , geomorphology , geology
Background A left ventricular (LV) endocardial lead implant to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is feasible when a conventional implant failed due to anatomical or technical issues or when the venous implant was performed but the patient did not respond to the therapy. Methods Data about the implantation procedure (age, sex, clinical characteristics, anticoagulant use, and previous devices), patient characteristics (indication, technique used, lead model, complications), and follow‐up (clinical and echocardiographic outcome, LV lead electrical measurements) were analyzed for all CRT systems implanted using LV endocardial lead, due to failed conventional implant or nonresponse, between April 2011 and November 2016. Results Thirty‐five patients were implanted with an active fixation LV endocardial lead during the study period, without significant complications. There were no dislodgements or severe complications related to the implant procedure in the follow‐up period (36 ± 20 months) and a high percentage of patients responded to therapy, as assessed by several indicators. Conclusions An LV endocardial lead implant was feasible when the conventional technique had previously failed or was not effective. A high rate of response was achieved without any significant complications.