Iranian Heart Journal

Iranian Heart Journal

Comparison of the Results of Left Ventricular Epicardial and Endocardial Pacing Through the Coronary Sinus in Patients With Triple-Chamber Pacing

Authors
Aboalfath Alizadeh 1
Ehsan Ghourchian 2
Sajad Naderi 2
Mohammadesmaeil Zanganehfar 2
Ali Ghasemi 2
Najand Salek 2
Sara Baramaki 2
1 Cardiac Electrophysiology Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular, Medical, and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran
2 Rajaie Cardiovascular, Medical, and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran
Abstract
Background: Considering the many reports of elevated threshold levels and left ventricular dysfunction in epicardial leads, the evaluation of the short- and long-term efficacy of this type of leads is necessary in comparison with the coronary sinus (CS) leads. The present study compared left ventricular epicardial pacing via surgery and CS pacing in patients with triple- chamber pacemakers. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed on patients referred for cardiac resynchronization therapy. The patients were re-evaluated with ECG after pacemaker implantation and before discharge. The evaluations were performed in 2 patient groups under left ventricular epicardial pacing and CS pacing. Results: At 12 months’ follow-up, the mean left ventricular pacing lead threshold was significantly higher in the patients with epicardial lead pacing than in those with endocardial lead pacing. Additionally, regarding the ECG pattern after lead pacing, the morphology of QRS at V1 lead and also the type of the QRS axis significantly differed between epicardial pacing and CS pacing 6–12 months after pacemaker implantation. The mean left ventricular pacing lead threshold was at its highest in the posterolateral area and at its lowest in the anterolateral area, but without any significant difference. Conclusions: Comparisons between the results and the long-term effects of CS pacing and surgical epicardial lead pacing in the present study indicated that the increase and changes in the left ventricular leading threshold in the epicardial pacing lead were much more pronounced than those in CS pacing through the CS. Therefore, the use of CS leads might be preferred to pericardial leads due to the stability of left ventricular leads.
Keywords
Epicardial LV lead
Endocardial LV lead
Coronary sinus
  1. Abraham WT, Hayes DL. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure. Circulation 2003;108:2596–603.
  2. Bleeker GB, Bax JJ, Fung JW, van der Wall EE, Zhang Q, Schalij MJ et al. Clinical versus echocardiographic parameters to assess response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:260–3.
  3. Ypenburg C, van de Veire N, Westenberg JJ, Bleeker GB, Marsan NA, Henneman MM et al. Noninvasive imaging in cardiac resynchronization therapy—Part 2: follow-up and optimization of settings. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2008;31:1628–39.
  4. Garrigue S, Jais P, Espil G, Labeque JN, Hocini M, Shah DC et al. Comparison of chronic biventricular pacing between epicardial and endocardial left ventricular stimulation using Doppler tissue imaging in patients with heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2001;88:858–62.
  5. Van Gelder BM, Scheffer MG, Meijer A, Bracke FA. Transseptal endocardial left ventricular pacing: an alternative technique for coronary sinus lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm 2007;4:454–60.
  6. DeRose JJ, Ashton RC, Belsley S, Swistel DG, Vloka M, Ehlert F et al. Robotically assisted left ventricular epicardial lead implantation for biventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1414–9.
  7. Fernandez AL, Garcia-Bengochea JB, Ledo R, Vega M, Amaro A, Alvarez J et al. Minimally invasive surgical implantation of left ventricular epicardial leads for ventricular resynchronization using video-assisted thoracoscopy. Rev Esp Cardiol 2004;57:313–9.
  8. Jais P, Takahashi A, Garrigue S, Yamane T, Hocini M, Shah DC et al. Mid-term follow-up of endocardial biventricular pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000;23: 1744–7.
  9. Leclercq C, Gadler F, Kranig W, Ellery S, Gras D, Lazarus A et al. A randomized comparison of triple-site versus dual-site ventricular stimulation in patients with congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1455–62.
  10. van Deursen C, van Geldorp IE, Rademakers LM, van Hunnik A, Kuiper M, Klersy C et al. LV Endocardial pacing improves resynchronization therapy in canine LBBB hearts. Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol 2009; Epub ahead of print 10 August 2009.
  11. Mair H1, Sachweh J, Meuris B, Nollert G, Schmoeckel M, Schuetz A, Reichart B, Daebritz S. Surgical epicardial left ventricular lead versus coronary sinus lead placement in biventricular pacing. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005 Feb;27(2):235-42.
  12. Izutani H1, Quan KJ, Biblo LA, Gill IS. Biventricular pacing for congestive heart failure: early experience in surgical epicardial versus coronary sinus lead placement. Heart Surg Forum. 2002;6(1):E1-6; discussion E1-6.
  13. van Gelder BM1, Scheffer MG, Meijer A, Bracke FA. Transseptal endocardial left ventricular pacing: an alternative technique for coronary sinus lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2007 Apr;4(4):454-60. Epub 2006 Nov 29.
  14. Naga V.Garikipati,MD,MPH,Suneet ittal,MD,Farooq Chaudhry,MD,Dan L.Musat,MD,Tina Sichrovsky,MD: Comparison of Endovascularversus epicardial lead placement for resynchoronization therapy:  The  mount Sinai hospital,new York,New York,Manuscript received August 6,2013:revised manuscript received and accepted November 8,2013.
Iranian Heart Journal
Volume 20, Issue 2
Spring 2019
Pages 69-74