These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Single-site ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus in patients with tricuspid valve disease.
    Author: Noheria A, van Zyl M, Scott LR, Srivathsan K, Madhavan M, Asirvatham SJ, McLeod CJ.
    Journal: Europace; 2018 Apr 01; 20(4):636-642. PubMed ID: 28339945.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To evaluate coronary sinus single-site (CSSS) left ventricular pacing in adult patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when traditional right ventricular lead implantation is not feasible or is contraindicated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 23 patients with tricuspid valve surgery/disease who received a CSSS ventricular pacing lead to avoid crossing the tricuspid valve. Two matched control populations were obtained from patients receiving (i) conventional right ventricular single-site (RVSS) leads and (ii) coronary sinus leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CSCRT). Main outcomes of interest were lead stability, electrical lead parameters and change in LVEF during long-term follow-up. Successful CSSS pacing was accomplished in all 23 patients without any procedural complications. During the 5.3 ± 2.8-year follow-up 22/23 (95.7%) leads were functional with stable pacing and sensing parameters, and 1/23 (4.3%) was extracted for unrelated reasons. Compared to CSSS leads, the lead revision/abandonment was similar with RVSS leads (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 22.0), but was higher with CSCRT leads (HR 7.41, 95% CI 1.30, 139.0). There was no difference in change in LVEF between CSSS and RVSS groups (-2.4 ± 11.0 vs. 1.5 ± 12.8, P = 0.76), but LVEF improved in CSCRT group (11.2 ± 16.5%, P = 0.002). Fluoroscopy times were longer during implantation of CSSS compared to RVSS leads (25.6 ± 24.6 min vs. 12.3 ± 18.6 min, P = 0.049). CONCLUSION: In patients with normal LVEF, single-site ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus is a feasible, safe and reliable alternative to right ventricular pacing.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]