Video-assisted thoracoscopic epicardial pacing: A contemporary overview.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has revolutionized the approach and management of pulmonary and cardiac diseases, and its applications have significantly expanded in the last two decades. Beyond its established role in thoracic procedures, VATS has also emerged as a valuable technique for various electrophysiological procedures, including pacemaker implantations, ablation procedures, and left atrial appendage exclusion. This paper presents a thorough review of the existing literature on pacing procedures performed using a VATS approach. By analyzing and synthesizing the available studies, we aim to provide an in-depth understanding of the current knowledge and advancements in VATS-based pacing procedures. A key focus of this review is the detailed description of implantation techniques via a VATS approach.

The Ventricular Hypokinesis at the Apical Pacing Site due to the Early Shortening and Rebound Stretch in a Case with Fontan Procedure.

The left ventricular (LV) apex is recommended as the first choice for positioning the epicardial pacing. We encountered a patient with congenital heart disease (CHD) showing hypokinesis of the LV apical pacing site after implantation of a pacemaker with epicardial leads. This phenomenon was revealed by the early shortening and systolic rebound stretch of the same lesion on two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography, which developed in the intraventricular dyssynchrony between the LV apex and base. Cardiac resynchronization therapy provided an excellent result around the hypokinetic lesion. It is wise to arrange detailed evaluations in each patient with complicated CHD, aiming at a successful treatment to enable ventricular synchronicity.

Sudden cardiac arrest in an epicardial paced-dependent child: watch out, it's a pitfall!

Coronary artery compression by epicardial leads is a rare complication in children and can be difficult to identify with potentially lethal outcomes. Herein, we report the case of a previously asymptomatic paced-dependant 5-year-old girl who presented to our institution with resuscitated cardiac arrest. We describe the atypical sequence of clinical findings misleading initial diagnosis. Hardware failure and the commonly occurring lead fracture were incriminated in the mechanism of cardiac arrest, precipitating implantation of a new pacing system while concealing dynamic compression of the left anterior descending coronary artery.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients.

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Alternate method for endocardial pacemaker lead implantation: A hybrid mini-thoracotomy approach.

Although the conventional methods for endo-cardial pacemaker lead implantation via subclavian or cephalic or axillary vein routes is common, but sometimes due to anatomical variations it is not feasible to access these veins Emergence of newer techniques are useful for lead implantation. This case report focuses on a hybrid approach of combined mini-thoracotomy for endocardial pacemaker lead implantation. This fluoroscopy guided minimal thoracotomy approach with endocardial MRI compatible lead placement had the benefits of simple procedural, minimal hospital stay, low early complication rates and economically viable to the patient.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients: Executive summary.

Guidelines for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have evolved since publication of the initial ACC/AHA pacemaker guidelines in 1984 [1]. CIEDs have evolved to include novel forms of cardiac pacing, the development of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the introduction of devices for long term monitoring of heart rhythm and other physiologic parameters. In view of the increasing complexity of both devices and patients, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. In 2018, the ACC/AHA/HRS published Guidelines on the Evaluation and Management of Patients with Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay [2], which were specific recommendations for patients >18 years of age. This age-specific threshold was established in view of the differing indications for CIEDs in young patients as well as size-specific technology factors. Therefore, the following document was developed to update and further delineate indications for the use and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, with recognition that there is often overlap in the care of patents between 18 and 21 years of age. This document is an abbreviated expert consensus statement (ECS) intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease/diagnostic categories. This document will also provide guidance regarding the management of lead systems and follow-up evaluation for pediatric patients with CIEDs. The recommendations are presented in an abbreviated modular format, with each section including the complete table of recommendations along with a brief synopsis of supportive text and select references to provide some context for the recommendations. This document is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the basis for each of the recommendations, which are further addressed in the comprehensive PACES-CIED document [3], with further data easily accessible in electronic searches or textbooks.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients.

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Surgical pericardial adhesions do not preclude minimally invasive epicardial pacemaker lead placement in an infant porcine model.

BACKGROUND: Pericardial adhesions in infants and small children following cardiac surgery can impede access to the epicardium. We previously described minimally invasive epicardial lead placement under direct visualization in an infant porcine model using a single subxiphoid incision. The objective of this study was to assess the acute feasibility of this approach in the presence of postoperative pericardial adhesions. METHODS: Adhesion group piglets underwent left thoracotomy with pericardiotomy followed by a recovery period to develop pericardial adhesions. Control group piglets did not undergo surgery. Both groups underwent minimally invasive epicardial lead placement using a 2-channel access port (PeriPath) inserted through a 1 cm subxiphoid incision. Under direct thoracoscopic visualization, pericardial access was obtained with a 7-French sheath, and a pacing lead was affixed against the ventricular epicardium. Sensed R-wave amplitudes, lead impedances and capture thresholds were measured. RESULTS: Eight piglets underwent successful pericardiectomy and developed adhesions after a median recovery time of 45 days. Epicardial lead placement was successful in adhesion (9.5 ± 2.7 kg, n = 8) and control (5.6 ± 1.5 kg, n = 7) piglets. There were no acute complications. There were no significant differences in capture thresholds or sensing between groups. Procedure times in the adhesion group were longer than in controls, and while lead impedances were significantly higher in the adhesion group, all were within normal range. CONCLUSIONS: Pericardial adhesions do not preclude minimally invasive placement of epicardial leads in an infant porcine model. This minimally invasive approach could potentially be applied to pediatric patients with prior cardiac surgery.

MRI in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients with CIEDs and epicardial or abandoned leads.

BACKGROUND: Heart Rhythm Society guidelines outlining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) excluded children and epicardial or abandoned leads due to theoretical risks of harm. Research investigating these risks is lacking. The primary objective of our study is to determine the incidence of adverse events to patients or CIEDs from MRI imaging. The secondary objective is to describe CIED-related artifact on MRI images. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was performed on all patients with CIEDs who underwent 1.5 Tesla MRI between July 2007 and May 2019. We subdivided patients among four cohorts: (1) patients <18 years of age, (2) epicardial leads, (3) abandoned endocardial leads, and (4) abandoned epicardial leads. Descriptive statistics pre- and post-MRI and at follow-up within 1.5 years were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-four MRIs were performed on 40 patients. Median age was 21.2 years (IQR 12.0-25.0). Eighteen (33%) MRIs contained abandoned leads; 20 (37%) contained epicardial leads. Three patients, one with abandoned epicardial leads and two with abandoned endocardial leads, experienced mild discomfort at the CIED site. One adult with endocardial leads experienced a pause in the heart rate while programmed in a nonpacing mode. No clinically important changes to CIED parameters occurred. Nine MRIs (17%), especially those with functional cardiac imaging, were uninterpretable due to image artifact. CONCLUSION: In this study, pediatric and adult CHD patients with CIEDs, many with epicardial or abandoned leads, underwent MRIs without clinically significant complications. In some, CIED artifact reduced cardiac MRI image quality due to CIED position.

Effects of epicardial versus transvenous left ventricular lead placement on left ventricular function and cardiac perfusion in cardiac resynchronization therapy: A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is crucial to achieve an optimal effect on hemodynamics. Due to various difficulties, up to 30% of transvenous LV lead placements fail, or a suboptimal position is achieved. Surgical epicardial LV lead placement could be performed at a position anticipated to be the optimal site. This could have a more favorable effect, which may be expressed by increased improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and cardiac perfusion. The objective of this trial is to compare transvenous versus epicardial LV lead placement in CRT in a randomized fashion METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were randomized to either epicardial or transvenous approach. All patients received an ICD with CRT. Patients were followed for 6 months after device implant. Primary endpoint was the degree of change in cardiac perfusion measured by myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. LVEF equally improved in both groups, from 24% to 36% in the transvenous group versus 25% to 35% in the epicardial group (P = 0.797). Cardiac perfusion, expressed as summed stress score, improved in both groups without a significant difference as well (P = 0.727). Complication rate was similar, respectively 6 and 7 patients had any complication. Admission time was significantly longer in the epicardial group with 2 (2-7) versus 3 (2-32) days (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Epicardial LV lead placement does not result in additional improvement of LVF or myocardial perfusion compared to the conventional transvenous in CRT.

Alternative to left ventricular lead implantation through the coronary sinus: 1-year experience with a minimally invasive and robotically guided approach.

AIMS: Left ventricular (LV) lead implantation through the coronary sinus (CS) can be limited and sometimes not possible-alternative approaches are needed. Minimally invasive, robotically guided LV lead implantation has major advantages, but there are little published data about the short- and long-term follow-ups, in terms of feasibility, safety, electrical performance, and impact on clinical outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 21 heart failure patients underwent robotically guided LV lead implantation using the Da Vinci Robotic System. Indications were failed implant with conventional approach through the CS (n = 16) and non-response to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (n = 5). During the procedure, the entire LV free wall was exposed through 3 transthoracic ports (10 mm diameter each) allowing ample choice of stimulation site and the ability to implant 2 LV leads via a Y connector. Patients were prospectively followed up for 1 year. The two LV leads were successfully implanted in all patients. No peri-procedural complications were observed. After a mean stay in the intensive care unit of 1.2 ± 4 days, the 21 patients were hospitalized in the EP department for 6.7 ± 2.9 days. Acute LV thresholds were excellent (1.0 V ± 0.6/0.4 ms) and stayed stable at 1-year follow-up (1.5 V ± 0.6/0.4 ms, P = 0.21). Four patients demonstrated an increased threshold (>2 V/0.4 ms). There was no phrenic nerve stimulation. After 12 months, in the failed implant group, 69% of the patients were echocardiographic and clinical responders. CONCLUSION: The robotic approach was feasible, safe, and minimally invasive. Accordingly, robotically guided LV lead implantation seems to offer a new alternative when conventional approaches are not suitable.

Pacemaker-twiddler's syndrome in a seven-year-old male domestic shorthaired cat.

A seven-year-old male neutered domestic shorthaired cat underwent surgical placement of a permanent epicardial pacemaker following diagnosis of intermittent second and third degree atrioventricular block, which was responsible for 'seizure-like' episodes. Although the pacemaker implant was successful, the cat started experiencing near-syncopal episodes approximately one year after surgery. Ambulatory Holter recording showed periods of loss of capture. Therefore, the pacemaker was interrogated using incremental energy output, which did not evoke any capture, even at the highest possible pulse voltage and duration. Thoracic radiographs showed that the pulse generator had rotated compared to the original radiographic assessment and the lead appeared entangled and shortened, resembling the findings described as 'twiddler syndrome' in humans and dogs, which is characterised by twisting of the lead caused by rotation of the pulse generator around its long axis and subsequent lead migration. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first report of twiddler syndrome in a cat.

Staged therapeutic surgery for progressive pulmonary regurgitation and pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy after the tetralogy of fallot repair.

BACKGROUND: Recently, improvements in the repair of tetralogy of Fallot have increased the need for reoperation in adulthood, and it's not rare that these reoperation candidates suffer from biventricular failure. However, there are no firm treatment guidelines, and each country, and even each facility, treats each case individually. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the successful staged treatment of pulmonary regurgitation and pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy with biventricular failure in adulthood in a case of complete atrioventricular block after tetralogy of Fallot repair in childhood. We planned a staged therapeutic strategy with preoperative left ventricular volume reduction with medication, following surgical pulmonary valve replacement concomitant epicardial lead implantation on the lateral basal wall, placed just beneath the generator pocket through 3rd intercostal space. in addition to postoperative intervention with a defibrillator to adjust cardiac resynchronization therapy, resulted in improvement of symptoms. CONCLUSION: In a patient with biventricular failure after TOF repair, a staged treatment strategy involving medication, PVR, and CRT with a combination of epicardial and intravenous leads could be a useful treatment worth trying before heart transplantation.

Treatment of cardiac implantable electronic device endocarditis in pacemaker-dependent patients utilizing a percutaneous aspiration system.

With the increasing use of cardiac implantable electronic devices, the number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device-related endocarditis is also rising. The treatment of this type of endocarditis is a challenging clinical task, in particular if device removal is required in patients who are pacemaker dependent. This video tutorial describes a treatment strategy for cardiac implantable electronic device-related endocarditis involving the tricuspid valve in pacemaker-dependent patients. The proposed treatment strategy consists of implanting an epicardial pacemaker via a minimally invasive subxiphoid approach, percutaneous aspiration of tricuspid valve vegetations and complete transvenous explantation of the infected cardiac implantable electronic device system using advanced lead extraction tools.

Pacemaker Relocation for Radiation Against Overlapping Lung Cancer.

We experienced a patient after pacemaker (PM) implantation who had lung cancer of the left upper lobe that developed just behind the PM. The patient was an 81-year-old man with many complications. Radiation was the only treatment option. The PM had to be moved to another place to avoid direct radiation exposure to it. An epicardial pacing lead was implanted on the right ventricular epicardium, and the new generator was implanted in the abdomen. The patient was treated with a total of 62 Gy of radiotherapy for lung cancer, achieving a temporary shrinkage of the tumor. During the radiotherapy period, the PM functioned well without harmful events. When radiation therapy is needed in cases where the tumor overlaps the PM, relocation surgery using an epicardial pacing lead may be a useful option.

Surgical resection and epicardial lead implantation for primary cardiac lymphoma with a complete atrioventricular block: a case report.

Background: Primary cardiac lymphoma (PCL) is a rare cardiac tumour with various presentations, which might cause a complete atrioventricular (AV) block, which can, in turn, cause heart failure symptoms. Case summary: We report a case of a 55-year-old woman with a chief complaint of exertional dyspnoea. Her vital signs showed bradycardia, and electrocardiography revealed a complete AV block. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed a large intra-cardiac mass in the right atrium. Full-body positron emission tomography showed an elevated fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the right atrial mass, interatrial septum, and wall of the left atrium. Since the tumour could obstruct the tricuspid valve, urgent tumour debulking surgery and epicardial lead implantation were performed. Histopathological examination results were consistent with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. After several courses of chemotherapy, we kept her in complete remission of the tumour for 2 years. Discussion: Primary cardiac lymphoma was complicated by a complete AV block and diagnosed by using the samples that we obtained in the surgery. A surgical resection of the tumour and epicardial lead implantation, combined with chemotherapy, can be an option, especially in patients who require cardiac surgery.

Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with surgically implanted permanent epicardial leads.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety in patients with an epicardial cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and adverse effects of MRI in patients who had surgically implanted epicardial CIED. METHODS: Patients with surgically implanted CIEDs who underwent MRI with an appropriate cardiology-radiology collaborative protocol between January 2008 and January 2021 were prospectively studied in 2 clinical centers. All patients underwent close cardiac monitoring through MRI procedures. Outcomes were compared between the epicardial CIED group and the matched non-MRI-conditional transvenous CIED group. RESULTS: Twenty-nine consecutive patients with epicardial CIED (41.4% male; mean age 43 years) underwent 52 MRIs in 57 anatomic regions. Sixteen patients had a pacemaker, 9 had a cardiac defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator, and 4 had no device generator. No significant adverse events occurred in the epicardial or transvenous CIED groups. Battery life, pacing, sensing thresholds, lead impedance, and cardiac biomarkers were not significantly changed, except 1 patient had a transient decrease in atrial lead sensing function. CONCLUSION: MRI of CIEDs with epicardially implanted leads does not represent a greater risk than transvenous CIEDs when performed with a multidisciplinary collaborative protocol centered on patient safety.

Minimally invasive epicardial left-ventricular lead implantation and simultaneous left atrial appendage closure.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with heart failure resulting in a high prevalence of AF in patients receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) implantation. In patients, unsuitable for transvenous left ventricular (LV)-lead implantation, epicardial LV-lead implantation represents a valuable alternative. Epicardial LV-lead placement can be achieved totally thoracoscopical or via minimally invasive left lateral thoracotomy. In patients with atrial fibrillation, concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) clipping is feasible via the same access. Therefore, the aim of our study was the analysis of safety and efficacy of epicardial LV lead implantation and concomitant LAA clipping via minimally invasive left-lateral thoracotomy. Methods: Between December 2019 and March 2022, 8 patients received minimally invasive left atrial LV-lead implantation with concomitant LAA closure using the AtriClip. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed to intraoperatively guide and control LAA closure. Results: Mean patients age was 64 ± 11.2 years, 67% were male patients. Minimally invasive left-lateral thoracotomy was used in 6 patients while a totally thoracoscopic approach was performed in 2 cases. Epicardial lead implantation was successfully performed in all patients with good pacing threshold (mean 0.8 ± 0.2 V) and sensing values (10.1 ± 2.3 mV). Posterolateral position of the LV lead was achieved in all patients. Furthermore, successful LAA closure was confirmed during TEE in all patients. No procedure-related complications occurred in any of the patients. Two patients additionally received simultaneous laser lead extraction during the same procedure. Complete lead extraction was achieved in both patients. All patients were extubated in the OR and had an uneventful postoperative course. Conclusion: Our study highlights a novel treatment approach for patients with atrial fibrillation and the necessity of epicardial LV leads. Placement of a posterolateral LV lead position with concomitant occlusion of the left atrial appendage via a minimally-invasive left-lateral thoracotomy or even a totally thoracoscopic approach is safe and feasible with superior cosmetic result and complete occlusion of the left atrial appendage.

Long-Term Performance of Epicardial versus Transvenous Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Aims: to study the technical performance of epicardial left ventricular (LV) leads placed via video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), compared to transvenously placed leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods: From 2001 until 2013, a total of 644 lead placement procedures were performed for CRT. In the case of unsuccessful transvenous LV lead placement, the patient received an epicardial LV lead. Study groups consist of 578 patients with a transvenous LV lead and 66 with an epicardial LV lead. The primary endpoint was LV-lead failure necessitating a replacement or deactivation. The secondary endpoint was energy consumption. Results: The mean follow up was 5.9 years (epicardial: 5.5 ± 3.1, transvenous: 5.9 ± 3.5). Transvenous leads failed significantly more frequently than epicardial leads with a total of 66 (11%) in the transvenous leads group vs. 2 (3%) in the epicardial lead group (p = 0.037). Lead energy consumption was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Epicardial lead placement is feasible, safe and shows excellent long-term performance compared to transvenous leads. Epicardial lead placement should be considered when primary transvenous lead placement fails or as a primary lead placement strategy in challenging cases.