Helix-fixed leadless pacemaker implantation through a valve-in-valve tricuspid prosthesis via the femoral approach.

Leadless pacemakers offer the opportunity to avoid transvenous hardware among patients with tricuspid valve prostheses. We present the first case of a helix-based fixation leadless pacemaker implanted through valve-in-valve tricuspid prostheses in a 43-year-old female with extensive prior cardiac history. At the time of presentation, epicardial pacing was no longer a viable option in the setting of pacemaker dependence. Placement of a helix-fixed, leadless right ventricular pacemaker was performed as a bridge to dual-chamber leadless pacing. This was safely and effectively performed and highlighted favorable procedural characteristics that included RV cavity dimensions and prosthesis type.

Multiparametric Approach for the Assessment of Mechanical Prosthetic Tricuspid Leaflet Function.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of comprehensive echocardiographic data to allow discrimination of normal versus abnormal mechanical prosthetic tricuspid valve (MPTV) leaflet function. The identification of such parameters is essential to optimize diagnostic and therapeutic measures. METHODS: The authors investigated bileaflet MPTV function by comparing transthoracic echocardiographic data from 21 episodes of leaflet dysfunction due to valve thrombosis in 12 patients with data from 56 individuals with normal MPTV function. All episodes of dysfunction were confirmed by transesophageal echocardiography and/or cine fluoroscopy. Transthoracic echocardiography-derived two-dimensional, color, and spectral Doppler variables, including MPTV peak early diastolic velocity (E velocity), mean gradient, pressure half-time, time-velocity integral (TVI) of the MPTV, ratio of TVIMPTV to TVI of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and TVI of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), and continuity-derived effective orifice area, were measured in both groups. RESULTS: Most episodes of MPTV dysfunction resulted from simultaneous involvement of both leaflets (57%), with leaflet(s) often immobilized in the open or semiopen position (71%). Transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography performed similarly in detecting abnormal leaflet motion (90% vs 88%, P = .68), whereas transesophageal echocardiography was better in identifying MPTV thrombosis (31% vs 14%, respectively, P = .01). Color Doppler demonstrated flow propagation abnormalities in 67% of episodes of leaflet dysfunction but not in the control group (P < .0001). Doppler variables associated with MPTV leaflet dysfunction included E velocity > 1.6 m/sec, mean gradient > 5 mm Hg, PHT > 157 msec, TVIMPTV > 42 cm, TVIMPTV/TVILVOT > 2.3, TVIMPTV/TVIRVOT > 3.0, and continuity-derived effective orifice area ≤ 1.1 cm2, with most variables showing high and similar accuracy (area under the curve ≥ 95%). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first comprehensive echocardiographic assessment of MPTV leaflet dysfunction that provides parameters and criteria to distinguish normal versus abnormal prosthetic valve function.

Left Ventricular Pacing through Coronary Sinus Is Feasible and Safe for Patients with Prior Tricuspid Valve Intervention.

BACKGROUND: In the presence of tricuspid valve intervention, right ventricular lead implantation is associated with the potential risk of tricuspid valve malfunction leading to a tricuspid regurgitation. Few cases have been reported with successful left ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus (CS) after tricuspid valve replacement or repair. In this retrospective study, we present the long-term clinical outcomes of 17 patients who underwent CS lead implantation and left ventricular pacing. METHODS: Seventeen consecutive patients referred to our institution with an indication of postprocedural pacemaker (PM) implantation after tricuspid valve intervention were retrospectively included in the study. The indication for device implantation in all patients was atrial fibrillation with a symptomatic pause ≥ 3.0 seconds. Thus, all devices implanted were ventricular rate responsive (VVIR). RESULTS: All device implantations were successful and uncomplicated. Mean operation time was 60 ± 8 minutes. Mean fluoroscopy time was 8.3 ± 2.1 minutes. Mean R-wave sensing was 7.5 ± 2.0 mV with a mean slew rate of 2.2 V/s. A mean pacing threshold of 1.9 ± 0.3 V/0.4 ms was accepted as patients were not PM-dependent. The pacing impedance was 743.5 ± 109.71 Ohm. At 2-year follow-up, pacing sensing, threshold, and impedance values were unchanged and no lead dislodgement has been noted. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with tricuspid valve intervention, left ventricular pacing might be the treatment of choice for permanent ventricular pacing, with all the advantages of the endovenous route as a minimally invasive approach.

Transvenous implantation of a ventricular pacing lead in a patient with an artificial tricuspid valve prosthesis.

The preference for treatment of symptomatic bradycardia is transvenous right ventricular pacing combined with atrial synchronisation if applicable. In the case of congenital anomalies where no conduit is present between the peripheral veins and the right ventricle, it is not possible to place the ventricular pacing lead in the right ventricle. Also the presence of an artificial valve in the tricuspid position excludes placement of an endocardial right ventricular pacing lead. Since the introduction of biventricular pacing, new guiding catheters and leads used as a transvenous route for left ventricular pacing are available. We report implantation of a ventricular pacing lead in the great cardiac vein for permanent ventricular pacing in a patient with a tricuspid valve prosthesis.