Injury to the coronary arteries and related structures by implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Damage to the coronary arteries and related structures from pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead implantation is a rarely reported complication that can lead to myocardial infarction and pericardial tamponade that may occur acutely or even years later. We summarize the reported cases of injury to coronary arteries and related structures and review the causes of troponin elevation in the setting of cardiac implantable electronic device implantation.

Capturing the His-Purkinje system is not possible from conventional right ventricular apical and nonapical pacing sites.

INTRODUCTION: Direct His bundle capture may negate ventricular electrical dyssynchrony induced by right ventricular (RV) apical pacing. We sought to evaluate if direct His bundle pacing is possible with conventional pacemaker lead implantation at various sites in the RV. METHODS: Consecutive patients underwent RV pacing using standard implantable active fixation pacing leads in a random order in the RV outflow tract, middle RV, and RV apex at stimulation threshold and at increasing voltages of 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 volts (V). At each location, QRS width and morphology on 12-lead electrocardiograph (ECG) were compared in sinus and paced rhythm at the different voltages. RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent a total of 2,160 paced QRS measurements. Progressive increases in stimulation voltage did not change QRS morphology or duration regardless of site of pacing (RV outflow tract, middle RV, and RV apex) in any of the 12 ECG leads. In addition, apart from the stimulation threshold between the RV outflow tract and RV apex, there was no statistically significant difference in QRS duration between the three pacing sites. CONCLUSION: In patients with a baseline normal QRS duration, none of the three conventional RV pacing sites were able to produce QRS narrowing and capture the His-Purkinje system. Furthermore, based on paced QRS duration as an indirect surrogate of electrical LV dyssynchrony, there was no clear advantage of one pacing site over another.

Proximity of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads to coronary arteries as assessed by cardiac computed tomography.

INTRODUCTION: There have been rare case reports of damage to adjacent coronary arteries by screw-in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads. Our aim was to assess the proximity of pacemaker and ICD leads to the major coronary anatomy using cardiac computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Cardiac CT images were retrospectively analyzed to assess the spatial relationship of device lead tips to the major coronary anatomy. RESULTS: Fifty-two right ventricular (RV) leads (17 apical, 35 nonapical) and 35 right atrial (RA) leads were assessed. Leads on the RV antero-septal junction (20 of 52) were close (median 4.7 mm) to, and orientated toward, the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. RA leads in the anterior (26 of 35) and lateral (seven of 35) walls of the RA appendage were not close to (16.9 ± 7.7 mm and 18.9 ± 12.4 mm, respectively) and directed away from the right coronary artery. However, an RA lead adjacent to the superior border of the tricuspid valve was 4.3 mm from the right coronary artery and an RA lead on the medial wall of the RA appendage was 1.6 mm away from the aorta. An RV pacemaker lead in the lateral wall of the RV inlet was 3.4 mm from the right coronary artery. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, a majority of RV leads were on the antero-septal junction and close to the overlying LAD coronary artery. RA leads adjacent to the tricuspid valve or on the medial RA appendage were in close proximity to the right coronary artery and aorta, respectively.

Pacing and implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead perforation as assessed by multiplanar reformatted ECG-gated cardiac computed tomography and clinical correlates.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the utility of cardiac computed tomography (CT) in the evaluation of right atrial (RA) and right ventricular (RV) pacemaker and implantable cardiac defibrillator lead perforation. METHODS: Images from a 320-slice electrocardiogram-gated cardiac CT scanner were retrospectively independently analyzed by two reviewers for lead position, pericardial effusion, and perforation.Perforation results were correlated with pacing sensing, impedance, and threshold measurements. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients had RV leads and 35 had RA leads. Five of 17 RV apical, one of 35 RV nonapical, and none of the 35 RA leads perforated through the myocardium on CT imaging criteria. Two "clinically" perforated leads (that had protruded 5 mm and 15 mm from the outer edge of the myocardium)had pericardial effusions and changes in pacing parameters, and required RV lead repositioning. In contrast,there were four apparent "radiologic" perforations (that had protruded only an average 1.5±0.5 mm from the outer edge of the myocardium) that did not require repositioning. These had the radiologic appearance of perforation on cardiac CT; however, they were not associated with pericardial effusions or significant changes in RV pacing lead sensing, impedance, and threshold measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac CT scanning with multiplanar reformatting is useful for documenting lead position and assessing for possible cardiac perforation. The clinical significance and natural history of leads with only the appearance of perforation on cardiac CT is uncertain.

Validation of conventional fluoroscopic and ECG criteria for right ventricular pacemaker lead position using cardiac computed tomography.

INTRODUCTION: It is hypothesized that pacing the right ventricular (RV) septum is associated with less deleterious outcomes than RV apical pacing. Our aim was to validate fluoroscopic and electrocardiography (ECG) criteria for describing pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator RV "septal" lead position against the proposed gold standard: cardiac computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Using the conventional fluoroscopic criteria, we intended to place RV nonapical leads on the interventricular septum. Lead positions were later retrospectively analyzed with CT and correlated with ECGs and fluoroscopic projections: posterior-anterior, 40° left anterior oblique (LAO), 40° right anterior oblique (RAO), and left lateral. RESULTS: Only 21% (nine of 35) of presumed "septal" RV nonapical leads using the conventional fluoroscopic criteria were on the true septum. A schema developed to define septal position in the RAO fluoroscopic view had high agreement with CT images. ECG criteria had only fair to moderate agreement with CT. The paced QRS duration was significantly longer (P < 0.001) with RV apical pacing (176 ± 10.7 ms), compared to RV nonapical pacing (144.5 ± 14.3 ms). CONCLUSION: Using the conventional fluoroscopic criteria, only a minority of RV leads were implanted on the true RV septum. Instead, aiming for the middle of the cardiac silhouette in the RAO fluoroscopic view, confirming rightward orientation in the LAO view, and having a paced QRS duration <140 ms may allow the implanting cardiologist a simple, more accurate method to achieve true RV septal lead positioning.

Beware of the coronary arteries with implantable cardiac electronic devices.

The transvenous implantation of cardiac devices may sometimes cause serious complications involving the coronary arteries. The left anterior descending artery may be injured during nonapical right ventricular implantation while a right atrial lead may injure the right or circumflex coronary artery. Injury of a left internal mammary graft to a coronary artery may cause myocardial infarction.