Bifocal Right Ventricular Cardiac Resynchronization Therapies in Patients with Unsuccessful Percutaneous Lateral Left Ventricular Venous Access

• Published in: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology Vol. 28; no. s1; pp. S27 - S30
• Main Authors: O'DONNELL, D., NADURATA, V., HAMER, A., KERTES, P., MOHAMMED, U.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148-5018 , USA and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK Blackwell Science Inc 01-01-2005
• Subjects: Aged; cardiac pacing; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods; cardiac resynchronization; Cardiac Surgical Procedures - methods; Coronary Vessels; Female; heart failure; Heart Failure - therapy; Humans; left ventricular stimulation; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Failure
• ISSN: 0147-8389; 1540-8159
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.00069.x

Biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with a lateral left ventricular (LV) lead cannot always be achieved. We report a single center experience of CRT utilizing a protocol that specifically required the implantation of a bifocal right ventricular (RV) lead system when lateral LV pacing could not be achieved. Consecutive candidates for CRT were included in the study. If strict criteria for lateral LV pacing were not met, they underwent implantation of a bifocal RV lead system with two 7F, active fixation leads, one placed septally at the apex, and the other in the high septal outflow tract. All patients were followed for 12 months and the two groups were compared. A biventricular (BiV) stimulation system was implanted in 44 patients, and a bifocal RV system in six. The demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Both groups experienced a similar improvement in functional capacity, increase in 6 minutes walking distance, and decreased need for hospitalizations. The mean increase in LV ejection fraction was 11% in the bifocal RV group versus 10% in the BiV group. Though the tissue Doppler indices of LV synchrony improved earlier in the BiV group, (19% vs 10%) the improvement was similar in both groups at 6 months (23% vs 20%). The clinical improvements conferred by CRT can be matched by a bifocal RV system in selected patients. This alternate approach should be considered when implantation of a LV lateral lead was unsuccessful.