Is CRT Optimization Obsolete? A Referral Center's Experience.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF). However, 30% of HF patients do not show any improvement in clinical status after CRT implantation. In this study, we report our echocardiography-based CRT optimization methodology, in daily practice at our CRT referral center. Methods: We included 350 ambulatory patients, who were referred to our center for optimization after CRT implantation. A protocol-driven echocardiographic approach for adjusting mechanical dyssynchrony, whereby adjusting for ventriculoventricular (VV) delays with strain and atrioventricular (AV) delays with Doppler echocardiography was performed. We defined changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes as outcome variables in the evaluation of the CRT outcomes. Results: Optimization was obtained in 288 (82%) patients. VV and AV timings were adjusted to 61% and 51%, respectively. In 3%, biventricular pacing was turned off and in 3% left ventricular (LV) only pacing was programmed. The LVEF and NYHA class showed significant improvements in all patients who underwent CRT optimization. Conclusions: CRT optimization remains valuable in improving LVEF and functional status measured using the NYHA class in all patients receiving CRT devices.

Leadless pacemaker implantation via the internal jugular vein.

AIMS: Leadless pacemaker therapy was introduced to overcome lead- and pocket-related complications in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Implantation via the femoral vein, however, may not always be feasible. The aim of this study was to evaluate leadless pacemaker implantation using a jugular vein approach and compare it to the standard implantation via the femoral vein. METHODS AND RESULTS: The records of the first consecutive 100 patients undergoing Micra™ leadless pacemaker implantation via the right internal jugular vein from two centres were included in this study. Peri-procedural safety and efficacy of the jugular approach were compared to the first 100 patients using a femoral implantation approach at the University Hospital Zurich. One hundred patients underwent successful implantation of a leadless pacemaker via the internal jugular vein (mean age, 81.18 ± 8.29, 60% males). Mean procedure time was 35.63 ± 10.29 min with a mean fluoroscopy time of 4.66 ± 5.16 min. The device was positioned at the inferior septum in 25 patients, at the high septum in 24 patients, and mid-septum in 51 patients. The mean pacing threshold was 0.56 ± 0.35 V at 0.24 ms pulse width with a sensed amplitude of 10.0 ± 4.4 mV. At follow-up, electrical parameters remained stable in all patients. Compared with femoral implantation, patients undergoing the jugular approach were of similar age and had similar comorbidities. Mean procedure (48.9 ± 21.0 min) and fluoroscopy times (7.7 ± 7.8 min, both P < 0.01) were shorter compared to the femoral approach. Electrical parameters were similar between the two approaches. There were only two complications during jugular veinous implantations (1 pericardial effusion and 1 dislocation), compared to 16 complications using the femoral approach (1 pericardial effusion, 2 femoral artery injuries, and 13 major groin haematomas). CONCLUSION: The jugular approach may represent a safe and efficient alternative to femoral implantation of the Micra leadless pacemaker.

The jugular approach for leadless pacing: A novel and safe alternative.

AIMS: To evaluate safety of leadless pacemaker implantation through the internal jugular vein in a larger cohort with longer follow-up. Moreover, feasibility of non-apical pacing as well as relation between pacing site and QRS duration were assessed. METHODS: Eighty Two consecutive patients, who received a leadless pacemaker though the internal jugular vein, were included. Electrical parameters were measured at regular follow-up and any complications were registered. Paced QRS interval was compared for three pacing sites, RVOT, RV mid septum, and RV apical septum. RESULTS: In all patients, the leadless pacemaker was implanted successfully. In 69 patients, the device was implanted in a non-apical position. In 71% of cases, the device could be deployed at first attempt. The median fluoroscopy time was 4.4 min (range 0.9-51) The paced QRS interval was significantly narrower for non-apical pacing sites compared to apical pacing si 156  vs. 179 ms. p = .04, respectively. During mean follow-up of 16 months (range 0-43 months), electrical parameters remained stable. Two complications occurred, which could be resolved during the implant procedure. There were no access site related complications. CONCLUSION: The jugular approach for leadless pacemaker implantation is feasible and may avoid vascular complications. It facilitates non-apical positioning of leadless pacemakers leading to a narrower paced QRS interval. The jugular approach allows for immediate post procedural ambulation.

Leadless pacing: Going for the jugular.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacing is generally performed from a femoral approach. However, the femoral route is not always available. Until now, data regarding implantation using a jugular approach other than a single-case report were lacking. METHODS: The case records of all patients who underwent internal jugular venous (IJV) leadless pacemaker implantation (Micra, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) at our center were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Nineteen patients underwent IJV leadless pacemaker implantation, nine females, mean age of 77.5 ±9.6  years; permanent atrial fibrillation in all patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Implant indication was atrioventricular conduction disturbance in 10, pre-AV node ablation in seven, and replacement of a conventional VVI pacemaker in two (infection in one and lead malfunction in the other). The device was positioned at the superior septum in seven patients, apicoseptal in seven patients, and midseptal in five patients. In 12 patients, a sufficient device position was obtained at the first attempt, in three at the second, in one at the third, in one at the fourth, and in two at the sixth attempt. The mean pacing threshold was 0.56 ± 0.39V at 0.24-ms pulse width, sensed amplitude was 9.1 ± 3.2 mV, mean fluoroscopy duration was 3.1 ± 1.6 min. There were no vascular or other complications. At follow-up, electrical parameters remained stable in 18 of 19 patients. CONCLUSION: Although experience is minimal, we suggest that the IJV approach is safe and may be considered in patients where the femoral approach is contraindicated.

Five-year safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers in a Dutch cohort.

BACKGROUND: Adequate real-world safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (LPs) have been demonstrated up to 3 years after implantation. Longer-term data are warranted to assess the net clinical benefit of leadless pacing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of LP therapy in a real-world cohort. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients with a first LP implantation from December 21, 2012, to December 13, 2016, in 6 Dutch high-volume centers were included. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of major procedure- or device-related complications (ie, requiring surgery) at 5-year follow-up. Analyses were performed with and without Nanostim battery advisory-related complications. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with a pacing capture threshold ≤2.0 V at implantation and without ≥1.5-V increase at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients were included (mean age 79 ± 9 years), 93 (52%) with a Nanostim and 86 (48%) with a Micra VR LP. Mean follow-up duration was 44 ± 26 months. Forty-one major complications occurred, of which 7 were not advisory related. The 5-year major complication rate was 4% without advisory-related complications and 27% including advisory-related complications. No advisory-related major complications occurred a median 10 days (range 0-88 days) postimplantation. The pacing capture threshold was low in 163 of 167 patients (98%) and stable in 157 of 160 (98%). CONCLUSION: The long-term major complication rate without advisory-related complications was low with LPs. No complications occurred after the acute phase and no infections occurred, which may be a specific benefit of LPs. The performance was adequate with a stable pacing capture threshold.