Feasibility of percutaneous implantation of transapical endocardial left ventricular pacing electrode for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Abstract

Failure of coronary sinus lead implantation for resynchronization therapy requires alternative approaches. For such events we have developed a transapical implantation technique as a feasible alternative. We report the outcome of this technique and its evolution from a minithoracotomy to a percutaneous approach. Twenty patients underwent alternative resynchronization therapy with transapical endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing lead implantation in a multicentre, international study between October 2007 and March 2010. Eighteen patients underwent minithoracotomy and transapical puncture under direct observation. Two recent patients had transthoracic echocardiography-guided percutaneous apical puncture to enter the LV cavity. A 19 or 21 ga needle and two-stage Seldinger dilatation with 4 and 7 Fr sheaths were then used to introduce the lead. In the two patients with closed-chest insertion of the electrode there was no puncture related bleeding or lung damage. Lead dislocation occurred in two minithoracotomy patients. Repositioning was performed without re-opening the pleural cavity. One patient developed right-sided implanted cardiac defibrillator lead endocarditis requiring complete system removal. Twelve patients have >1 year follow-up; all have sustained and significant improvement in LV dimensions (diastolic Δ4.2 ± 2.9, systolic Δ7.2 ± 5.8 mm), ejection fraction (Δ9.5 ± 9.6%), and functional status (Δ1.1 ± 0.3). Transapical placement of LV endocardial pacing lead is an effective alternative strategy for cardiac resynchronization. A closed-chest, percutaneous approach is feasible and should offer even less invasive intervention.

Epicardial left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients via a video‐assisted thoracoscopic technique: Long‐term outcome

“…Two randomized studies have demonstrated the non‐inferiority of open‐chest access vs transvenous approach, in addition to several other non‐randomized studies …”

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of left ventricular endocardial pacing in advanced heart failure: Clinically efficacious but at what cost?

“…In the sensitivity analyses, it was even higher at 3.29–4.2 per 100 patient‐years. This is of relevance, as this analysis included larger studies with better quality outcomes data . These findings are contrary to those of Gamble in a recent meta‐analysis of this subject.…”

“…(2011) is a subgroup of Kis et al. (2017) in which NYHA and LVEF data was available . CRT = cardiac resynchronization therapy; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA = New York Heart Association.…”

Innovations in Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology: Challenges and Upcoming Solutions in 2018 and Beyond

“…However, intentional left ventricular endocardial lead placement via a transseptal puncture or the trans-apical route is feasible and results in ventricular remodeling. 9,10 Multiple studies demonstrate a hemodynamic benefit to endocardial left ventricular pacing in comparison with epicardial pacing. 11,12 This could be explained by the more physiogenic endocardial to epicardial depolarization and by the existence of the ability to select the pacing site with a deflectable catheter.…”