Minimal invasive right ventricular and atrial pacemaker lead repositioning as a first alternative is superior in avoiding pocket complications with passive fixation leads.

PURPOSE: Lead dislocations of pacemaker systems are reported in all and even in high-volume centers. Repeated procedures necessitated by lead dislocations are associated with an increased risk of complications. We investigated a minimal invasive method for right atrial and ventricular lead repositioning. METHODS: The minimal invasive method was applied only when passive fixation leads were implanted. During the minimal invasive procedure, a steerable catheter was advanced through the femoral vein to move the distal end of the lead to the appropriate position. Retrospective data collection was conducted in all patients with minimal invasive and with conventional method, at a single center between September 2006 and December 2012. RESULTS: Forty-five minimal invasive lead repositionings were performed, of which eight were acutely unsuccessful and nine electrodes re-dislocated after the procedure. One hundred two leads were repositioned with opening of the pocket during the same time, including the ones with unsuccessful minimal invasive repositionings. One procedure was acutely unsuccessful in this group and four re-dislocations happened. A significant difference of success rates was noted (66.6% vs. 95.1%, p = 0.001). One complication was observed during the minimal invasive lead repositionings (left ventricular lead microdislodgement). Open-pocket procedures showed different types of complications (pneumothorax, subclavian artery puncture, pericardial effusion, hematoma, fever, device-associated infection which necessitated explantation, atrial lead dislodgement while repositioning the ventricular one, deterioration of renal function). CONCLUSIONS: The minimal invasive method as a first alternative is safe and feasible. In those cases when it cannot be carried out successfully, the conventional method is applicable.

Minimal Invasive Left Ventricular Lead Repositioning is Safe and Effective in Distal Left Ventricular Lead Positions.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of left ventricular electrode dislocation and phrenic nerve stimulation remains an issue in the era of new electrode designs. METHODS: Safety and efficacy of minimal invasive lead repositioning and pocket opening reposition procedures were evaluated between December 2005 and December 2012 at our center. Minimal invasive method was developed and widely utilized at our center to treat phrenic nerve stimulation. The distally positioned left ventricular lead is looped around by a deflectable catheter in the right atrium introduced from the femoral vein access and then pulled back. Coronary stent implantation was used afterwards for lead stabilization in some patients. RESULTS: 42 minimal invasive and 48 electrode repositions with pacemaker pocket opening were performed at 77 patients for left ventricular lead problems. Minimal invasive reposition could be carried out successfully in 69% of (29 patients) cases. Note that in 14.3% of the cases (six patients) minimal invasive procedures were acutely unsuccessful and crossover was necessary. In 16.6% of the cases (seven patients) lead issues were noted later during follow-up. Opening of the pocket could be carried out successfully in 81.2% (39 patients) and was unsuccessful acutely in 6.25% (three patients). Repeated dislocation was noticed, 12.5%, in this group (six patients). Complication during minimal invasive procedures was electrode injury in one case. Pocket openings were associated with several complications: atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, fever, hematoma, and right ventricular electrode dislodgement. CONCLUSION: Minimal invasive procedure-as the first line approach-is safe and feasible for left ventricular electrode repositioning in selected cases.