How to implant a phrenic nerve stimulator for treatment of central sleep apnea?

BACKGROUND: Central sleep apnea (CSA) is a breathing disorder caused by the intermittent absence of central respiratory drive. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation is a new therapeutic option, recently approved by the FDA , for the treatment of CSA. OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique used to implant the transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation system (the remede System, Respicardia, Inc). METHODS: The remede System is placed in the pectoral region, typically on the right side. A single stimulation lead is placed in either the left pericardiophrenic vein (PPV) or the right brachiocephalic vein (RBC). A sensing lead is placed into the azygous vein to detect respiration. RESULTS: In the remede System Pivotal trial, 147 of 151 (97%) patients were successfully implanted with the system. Sixty-two percent of stimulation leads were placed in the PPV and 35% in the RBC. Mean procedure time was 2.7 ± 0.8 hours and 94% of patients were free from implant-related serious adverse events through 6 months. CONCLUSION: In patients with CSA, transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation is an effective and safe therapy with an implant procedure similar to that of cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Nonexcitatory, cardiac contractility modulation electrical impulses: feasibility study for advanced heart failure in patients with normal QRS duration.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac contractility modulation signals are associated with acutely improved hemodynamics, but chronic clinical impact is not defined. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, pilot study was to determine the feasibility of safely and effectively delivering cardiac contractility modulation signals in patients with heart failure. METHODS: Forty-nine subjects with ejection fraction <35%, normal QRS duration (105 +/- 15 ms), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure despite medical therapy received a cardiac contractility modulation pulse generator. Patients were randomized to have their devices programmed to deliver cardiac contractility modulation signals (n = 25, treatment group) or to remain off (n = 24, control group) for 6 months. Evaluations included NYHA class, 6-minute walk, cardiopulmonary stress test, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and Holter monitoring. RESULTS: Although most baseline features were balanced between groups, ejection fraction (31.4% +/- 7.4% vs 24.9% +/- 6.5%, P = .003), end-diastolic dimension (52.1 +/- 21.4 mm vs 62.5 +/- 6.2 mm, P = .01), peak VO(2) (16.0 +/- 2.9 mL O(2)/kg/min vs 14.3 +/- 2.8 mL O(2)/kg/min, P = .02), and anaerobic threshold (12.3 +/- 2.5 mL O(2)/kg/min vs 10.6 +/- 2.4 mL O(2)/kg/min, P = .01) were worse in the treatment group than in the control group. Nevertheless, one death occurred in the control group, and more patients in the treatment group were free of hospitalization for any cause at 6 months (84% vs 62%). No change in ectopy was observed. Compared with baseline, 6-minute walk (13.4 m), peak VO(2) (0.2 mL O(2)/kg/min), and anaerobic threshold (0.8 mL O(2)/kg/min) increased more in the treatment group than in control. None of these differences were statistically significant (small sample size). NYHA and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire changed similarly in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Despite a sicker population in the treatment group, no specific safety concerns emerged with chronic cardiac contractility modulation signal administration. Further study is required to definitively define the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation signals.

Extraction of chronically implanted coronary sinus leads active fixation vs passive fixation leads.

BACKGROUND: The Medtronic model 4195 (StarFix) left ventricular lead is an active fixation lead that provides additional support within the coronary sinus (CS) via deployable lobes. While this lead has been shown to have excellent stability within the CS, concerns about its extractability have been raised. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the extraction of the model 4195 lead vs other Medtronic CS leads in a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients undergoing extraction of this and other CS leads for standard indications were prospectively enrolled and studied. The primary outcomes of interest were the removal success rates and associated complication rates. Patients were followed for a month postprocedure. RESULTS: The overall left ventricular lead extraction success rate was 97.6% (n = 205). Among 40 patients with chronic model 4195 leads, there were 37 successful extractions (92.5%) as compared to 98.8% for the 165 non-4195 leads. However, in 2 of the 3 StarFix lead extraction failures, standard extraction techniques were not used. All 10 of the model 4195 leads that had been implanted for less than 6 months were extracted without incident. CONCLUSION: In this largest study of CS lead extractions published to date, the overall success rate of the extraction of chronically implanted CS leads is high and the complication rate is similar in these lead models. The extraction of the model 4195 lead is clearly more challenging, but it can be accomplished in high-volume extraction centers with experienced operators. It is recommended that the model 4195 lead be extracted by experienced operators.

Phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnea.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate chronic, transvenous, unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation to treat central sleep apnea (CSA) in a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study. BACKGROUND: CSA occurs predominantly in patients with heart failure and increases the risk for morbidity and mortality. Established therapies for CSA are lacking, and those available are limited by poor patient adherence. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with CSA underwent baseline polysomnography followed by transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation system implantation and follow-up. Feasibility was assessed by implantation success rate and therapy delivery. Safety was evaluated by monitoring of device- and procedure-related adverse events. Efficacy was evaluated by changes in the apnea-hypopnea index at 3 months. Quality of life at 6 months was evaluated using a sleepiness questionnaire, patient global assessment, and, in patients with heart failure at baseline, the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire. RESULTS: The study met its primary end point, demonstrating a 55% reduction in apnea-hypopnea index from baseline to 3 months (49.5 ± 14.6 episodes/h vs. 22.4 ± 13.6 episodes/h of sleep; p < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval for change: -32.3 to -21.9). Central apnea index, oxygenation, and arousals significantly improved. Favorable effects on quality of life and sleepiness were noted. In patients with heart failure, the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score significantly improved. Device- or procedure-related serious adverse events occurred in 26% of patients through 6 months post therapy initiation, predominantly due to lead repositioning early in the study. Therapy was well tolerated. Efficacy was maintained at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Transvenous, unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation appears safe and effective for treating CSA. These findings should be confirmed in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. (Chronic Evaluation of Respicardia Therapy; NCT01124370).