Title |
Epicardial left ventricular leads via minimally invasive technique: a role of steroid eluting leads
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13019-017-0659-4 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Etem Caliskan, Florian Fischer, Felix Schoenrath, Maximilian Y. Emmert, Francesco Maisano, Volkmar Falk, Christoph T. Starck, Tomas Holubec |
Abstract |
We retrospectively assessed two types of sutureless screw-in left ventricular (LV) leads (steroid eluting vs. non-steroid eluting) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation with regards to their electrical performance. Between March 2008 and May 2014 an epicardial LV lead was implanted in 32 patients after failed transvenous LV lead placement using a left-sided lateral minithoracotomy or video-assisted thoracoscopy (mean age 64 ± 9 years). Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of implanted lead. Steroid eluting (SE) group: 21 patients (Myodex™ 1084 T; St. Jude Medical) and non-steroid eluting (NSE) group: 11 patients (MyoPore® 511,212; Greatbatch Medical). All epicardial leads could be placed successfully, without any intraoperative complications or mortality. With regard to the implanted lead following results were observed: sensing (mV): SE 8.8 ± 6.1 vs. NSE 10.1 ± 5.3 (p = 0.380); pacing threshold ([email protected] ms): SE 1.0 ± 0.5 vs. NSE 0.9 ± 0.5 (p = 0.668); impedance (ohms): SE 687 ± 236 vs. NSE 790 ± 331 (p = 0.162). At the follow-up (2.6 ± 1.9 years) the following results were seen: sensing (mV): SE 8.7 ± 5.0 vs. NSE 11.2 ± 6.6 (p = 0.241), pacing threshold ([email protected] ms): SE 1.4 ± 0.5 vs. NSE 1.0 ± 0.3 (p = 0.035), impedance (ohms): SE 381 ± 95 vs. NSE 434 ± 88 (p = 0.129). Based on the results no strong differences have been found between the both types of epicardial LV leads (steroid eluting vs. non-steroid eluting) in CRT implantation in short- and midterm. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 6 | 38% |
Other | 1 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
Other | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 50% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 7 | 44% |