0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cardiac resynchronization therapy–defibrillator implantation with shock lead placement in the left bundle branch area: a case report

      case-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a safe technique providing physiological pacing, and LBBAP-optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) has been shown to provide better electrical resynchronization than traditional CRT. However, there are few reports on shock lead placement in the left bundle branch area (LBBA) during CRT–defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation.

          Case summary

          A 76-year-old woman with heart failure from dilated cardiomyopathy presented with left bundle branch block pattern (QRS duration, 160 ms). Left ventricular ejection fraction was 21%. Cardiac resynchronization therapy–defibrillator implantation was performed due to worsening symptoms. By reshaping the Agilis HisPro catheter and adding a septal curve, the shock lead was placed deep into the ventricular septum, narrowing QRS duration to 114 ms. Left ventricular activation time was 84 ms. A defibrillation threshold test confirmed successful treatment without adverse events. At 6-month follow-up, left ventricular ejection fraction improved from 21 to 63%, with the patient's condition improving from New York Heart Association class III to class I.

          Discussion

          It was reported that QRS narrowing in CRT was related to long-term mortality, and LOT-CRT further decreased QRS duration as compared with LBBP only or biventricular pacing and increased the response rate. Combining LBBAP with coronary sinus pacing can potentially achieve superior electrical resynchronization. Lack of a suitable tool for direct shock lead placement in LBBA necessitated additional LBBAP lead in conventional LOT-CRT. Our successful LOT-CRT-D procedure with minimal number of leads through Agilis HisPro catheter reshaping enabled direct LBBA shock lead placement.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction.

            Right ventricular pacing restores an adequate heart rate in patients with atrioventricular block, but high percentages of right ventricular apical pacing may promote left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We evaluated whether biventricular pacing might reduce mortality, morbidity, and adverse left ventricular remodeling in such patients. We enrolled patients who had indications for pacing with atrioventricular block; New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I, II, or III heart failure; and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less. Patients received a cardiac-resynchronization pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (the latter if the patient had an indication for defibrillation therapy) and were randomly assigned to standard right ventricular pacing or biventricular pacing. The primary outcome was the time to death from any cause, an urgent care visit for heart failure that required intravenous therapy, or a 15% or more increase in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index. Of 918 patients enrolled, 691 underwent randomization and were followed for an average of 37 months. The primary outcome occurred in 190 of 342 patients (55.6%) in the right-ventricular-pacing group, as compared with 160 of 349 (45.8%) in the biventricular-pacing group. Patients randomly assigned to biventricular pacing had a significantly lower incidence of the primary outcome over time than did those assigned to right ventricular pacing (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% credible interval, 0.60 to 0.90); results were similar in the pacemaker and ICD groups. Left ventricular lead-related complications occurred in 6.4% of patients. Biventricular pacing was superior to conventional right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block and left ventricular systolic dysfunction with NYHA class I, II, or III heart failure. (Funded by Medtronic; BLOCK HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00267098.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              2021 ESC Guidelines on Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

              Eight years have passed since the last European guidelines on cardiac pacing and resynchronisation therapy (CRT), an interval in which concepts have been refined and new concepts developed based on new data. These have been included in the recently published 2021 guidelines.[1] Among the novel approaches included in the updated guidelines is a comprehensive algorithm to evaluate patients with bradycardia or conduction disease. The algorithm includes: polysomnography; genetic testing in patients with early onset of progressive cardiac conduction disease ( 3 seconds if symptomatic or >6 seconds if asymptomatic) documented spontaneously or accompanied by symptoms during carotid sinus massage or tilt test.[2] Several refined indications offer advice on device management in special conditions. PMK implantation is recommended if AVB does not resolve in less than 5 days in patients with acute MI (AMI). Also, a new recommendation refers to early device implantation (defibrillator CRT – CRT-D/or pacemaker CRT – CRT-P) in selected patients with anterior AMI and acute heart failure. Permanent PMK implantation is a class I indication for patients with persistent AVB or new onset alternating bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI); also, this indication should be applied in patients with pre-existing right bundle branch block with new conduction disturbance peri-procedure for TAVI. CRT is recommended for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 150 ms, and left bundle branch block (LBBB) QRS morphology despite optimised medical therapy. With a narrower QRS of 130–149 ms and non-LBBB morphology, the recommendation is less sustained. A CRT-D device should be implanted in patients suitable for CRT who are also indicated for an ICD. CRT rather than right ventricular (RV) pacing is recommended in patients with LVEF 20% or LVEF <50% who are undergoing AV junctional ablation. His bundle pacing should be considered in patients with an indication for CRT in whom the coronary sinus lead implantation was unsuccessful. Leadless pacing could be considered in patients with difficult or impossible upper venous access or who are at high risk for pocket infection. Temporary transvenous pacing is recommended in cases of haemodynamic compromising bradyarrhythmia refractory to intravenous chronotropic drugs. MRI could be performed safely following manufacturer’s instructions in patients implanted with MRI-conditional PMK and leads. Despite the many gaps still limiting our knowledge, the 2021 guidelines on cardiac pacing and CRT represent a major step forward and should be rapidly implemented in clinical practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Handling Editor
                Role: Editor
                Role: Editor
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                Eur Heart J Case Rep
                Eur Heart J Case Rep
                ehjcr
                European Heart Journal: Case Reports
                Oxford University Press (UK )
                2514-2119
                July 2024
                04 July 2024
                04 July 2024
                : 8
                : 7
                : ytae323
                Affiliations
                Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital , 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki 710-8602, Japan
                Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital , 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki 710-8602, Japan
                Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital , 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki 710-8602, Japan
                Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital , 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki 710-8602, Japan
                Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital , 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki 710-8602, Japan
                Author notes
                Corresponding author. Tel: +81 86 422 0210, Fax: +81 86 421 3424, Email: ky15326@ 123456kchnet.or.jp

                Conflict of interest: None declared.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6462-5851
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2845-9561
                Article
                ytae323
                10.1093/ehjcr/ytae323
                11259192
                39035259
                a6d002d7-a8dd-4388-b70c-dfa8dab50ddb
                © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 04 December 2023
                : 22 February 2024
                : 01 July 2024
                : 19 July 2024
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Categories
                Case Report
                AcademicSubjects/MED00200
                Eurheartj/1
                Eurheartj/2

                left bundle branch area pacing,steerable delivery sheath,shock lead placement area,left bundle branch–optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy,case report

                Comments

                Comment on this article