2011PubMedOpen access

New generation of transvenous left ventricular leads - first experience with implantation of multipolar left ventricular leads.

Heiko Bürger, T Schwarz, W. Ehrlich, Johannes Sperzel, Wolf-Peter Kloevekorn, Tibor Ziegelhoeffer

Open full text 12 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aside from unfavourable anatomy, inacceptable pacing thresholds and phrenic nerve stimulation represent major obstacles for successful left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVE: To implant, for the first time, a new generation of transvenous multipolar LV leads (a quad-electrode lead) in combination with a CRT-cardioverter defibrillator, and to demonstrate that this combination allows for 10 different pacing vectors to combat the problems cited above. METHODS: Thirty patients were selected for CRT-cardioverter defibrillator implantation. At implantation, standard lead parameters were recorded. The reason for choosing a vector other than the standard bipolar vector for LV pacing, the LV lead implantation time, x-ray exposure time required for lead placement, and the reason for and number of repositions were documented. Before hospital discharge, a system inspection was performed. RESULTS: The implantation lead parameters were satisfactory. In 17 patients, a vector other than the standard bipolar vector was chosen to avoid phrenic nerve stimulation or to establish a better pacing threshold. In seven cases, the LV lead was repositioned (three phrenic nerve stimulations, two inacceptable pacing captures and two nonstable lead positions). Phrenic nerve stimulation was noted in eight cases; however, in five, this was eliminated by changing the stimulation vector. At hospital discharge, two-thirds of patients retained the implantation stimulation vector and in one-third, the vector was modified to further optimize the system. CONCLUSIONS: The quad-electrode lead provides good handling and may reduce the risk of inacceptable pacing thresholds and phrenic nerve stimulation. Consequently, implantation time, x-ray exposure and contrast agent load may be decreased, leading to lower kidney stress. Furthermore, the option for vector change after implantation may reduce the number of necessary reinterventions resulting from the pacing threshold and impedance increase.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Aside from unfavourable anatomy, inacceptable pacing thresholds and phrenic nerve stimulation represent major obstacles for successful left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVE: To implant, for the first time, a new generation of transvenous multipolar LV leads (a quad-electrode lead) in combination with a CRT-cardioverter defibrillator, and to demonstrate that this combination allows for 10 different pacing vectors to combat the problems cited above. METHODS: Thirty patients were selected for CRT-cardioverter defibrillator implantation. At implantation, standard lead parameters were recorded. The reason for choosing a vector other than the standard bipolar vector for LV pacing, the LV lead implantation time, x-ray exposure time required for lead placement, and the reason for and number of repositions were documented. Before hospital discharge, a system inspection was performed. RESULTS: The implantation lead parameters were satisfactory. In 17 patients, a vector other than the standard bipolar vector was chosen to avoid phrenic nerve stimulation or to establish a better pacing threshold. In seven cases, the LV lead was repositioned (three phrenic nerve stimulations, two inacceptable pacing captures and two nonstable lead positions). Phrenic nerve stimulation was noted in eight cases; however, in five, this was eliminated by changing the stimulation vector. At hospital discharge, two-thirds of patients retained the implantation stimulation vector and in one-third, the vector was modified to further optimize the system. CONCLUSIONS: The quad-electrode lead provides good handling and may reduce the risk of inacceptable pacing thresholds and phrenic nerve stimulation. Consequently, implantation time, x-ray exposure and contrast agent load may be decreased, leading to lower kidney stress. Furthermore, the option for vector change after implantation may reduce the number of necessary reinterventions resulting from the pacing threshold and impedance increase.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 12 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Aside from unfavourable anatomy, inacceptable pacing thresholds and phrenic nerve stimulation represent major obstacles for successful left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVE: To implant, for the first time, a new generation of transvenous multipolar LV leads (a quad-electrode lead) in combination with a CRT-cardioverter defibrillator, and to demonstrate that this combination allows for 10 different pacing vectors to combat the problems cited above. METHODS: Thirty patients were selected for CRT-cardioverter defibrillator implantation. At implantation, standard lead parameters were recorded. The reason for choosing a vector other than the standard bipolar vector for LV pacing, the LV lead implantation time, x-ray exposure time required for lead placement, and the reason for and number of repositions were documented. Before hospital discharge, a system inspection was performed. RESULTS: The implantation lead parameters were satisfactory. In 17 patients, a vector other than the standard bipolar vector was chosen to avoid phrenic nerve stimulation or to establish a better pacing threshold. In seven cases, the LV lead was repositioned (three phrenic nerve stimulations, two inacceptable pacing captures and two nonstable lead positions). Phrenic nerve stimulation was noted in eight cases; however, in five, this was eliminated by changing the stimulation vector. At hospital discharge, two-thirds of patients retained the implantation stimulation vector and in one-third, the vector was modified to further optimize the system. CONCLUSIONS: The quad-electrode lead provides good handling and may reduce the risk of inacceptable pacing thresholds and phrenic nerve stimulation. Consequently, implantation time, x-ray exposure and contrast agent load may be decreased, leading to lower kidney stress. Furthermore, the option for vector change after implantation may reduce the number of necessary reinterventions resulting from the pacing threshold and impedance increase.

Key concepts: Coronary sinus, Medicine, Ventricle, Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Cardiology, Coronary Vein, Internal medicine, Great cardiac vein

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
New generation of transvenous left ventricular leads - first experience with implantation of multipolar left ventricular leads. — Research Paper | ScholarLens