Impact of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty on Hemodynamics and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: the Initial Korean Experience.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA). However, not all patients are eligible for PEA, and some patients experience recurrence of pulmonary hypertension even after PEA. METHODS: Patients who underwent balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) between December 2015 and April 2017 were enrolled from the Samsung Medical Center CTEPH registry. Enrolled patients underwent right heart catheterization, echocardiography, and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) at baseline, 4 and 24 weeks after their first BPA session. We compared clinical and hemodynamic parameters at the baseline and last BPA session. RESULTS: Fifty-two BPA sessions were performed in 15 patients, six of whom had a history of PEA. BPA resulted in improvements in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class (2.9 ± 0.8 to 1.7 ± 0.6, P = 0.002), 6MWD (387.0 ± 86.4 to 453.4 ± 64.8 m, P = 0.01), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (14.1 ± 3.6 to 15.6 ± 4.3 mm, P = 0.03) and hemodynamics, including a decline in mean pulmonary artery pressure (41.1 ± 13.1 to 32.1 ± 9.5 mmHg, P < 0.001) and in pulmonary vascular resistance (607.4 ± 452.3 to 406.7 ± 265.4 dyne.sec.cm⁻5, P = 0.01) but not in cardiac index (2.94 ± 0.79 to 2.96 ± 0.93 L/min/m², P = 0.92). Six cases of complications were recorded, including two cases of reperfusion injury. CONCLUSION: BPA might be a safe and effective treatment strategy for both inoperable CTEPH patients and patients with residual pulmonary hypertension after PEA.

Thoracoscopic Implantation of Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

(1) Background: Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of epicardial left ventricular (LV) lead placement using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). (2) Methods: Acute and post-discharge outcomes of CRT were compared between patients with epicardial LV leads (Epicardial-LV group, n = 13) and those with endocardial LV leads (Endocardial-LV group, n = 243). (3) Results: Epicardial LV leads were implanted via VATS alone (n = 8) or along with mini-thoracotomy (n = 5), for failed endocardial implantation (n = 11) or recurrent lead dislodgement (n = 2). All epicardial procedures under general anesthesia with one-lung ventilation were successfully completed in 1.0 ± 0.4 h without phrenic nerve stimulation. LV pacing thresholds in the epicardial-LV (1.5 ± 1.0 V) and endocardial-LV (1.3 ± 0.8 V) were comparable (p = 0.651). All patients were discharged alive post-VATS 8.8 ± 3.9 days. During the follow-up (34.3 ± 28.6 months), all patients with epicardial LV leads stayed alive except for one cardiac death post-CRT 14 months and one heart transplantation post-CRT 30 months. All epicardial LV leads maintained stable performance without dislodgement/significant changes in pacing threshold/impedance. LV lead dislodgement occurred only in endocardial-LV (7/243, 2.9%). Efficacy in both groups was comparable in terms of QRS narrowing, increase in LV ejection fraction, and survival free of cardiac death, or heart-failure-related hospitalization. (4) Conclusions: Epicardial LV lead placement using VATS can be a safe and effective alternative to endocardial implantation, with comparable acute and post-discharge outcomes achieved by both approaches.