Thoracoscopic Implantation of Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapyopen access
- Authors
- Kim, Hye Ree; Lim, Kyunghee; Park, Seung-Jung; Park, Jong-Sung; Kim, Ju Youn; Chung, Suryeun; Jung, Dong-Seop; Park, Kyoung-Min; On, Young Keun; Kim, June Soo
- Issue Date
- May-2022
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Keywords
- epicardial; thoracoscopy; cardiac resynchronization therapy; heart failure
- Citation
- Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease, v.9, no.5
- Indexed
- SCIE
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease
- Volume
- 9
- Number
- 5
- URI
- https://scholarworks.gnu.ac.kr/handle/sw.gnu/71766
- DOI
- 10.3390/jcdd9050160
- ISSN
- 2308-3425
2308-3425
- Abstract
- (1) Background: Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of epicardial left ventricular (LV) lead placement using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). (2) Methods: Acute and post-discharge outcomes of CRT were compared between patients with epicardial LV leads (Epicardial-LV group, n = 13) and those with endocardial LV leads (Endocardial-LV group, n = 243). (3) Results: Epicardial LV leads were implanted via VATS alone (n = 8) or along with mini-thoracotomy (n = 5), for failed endocardial implantation (n = 11) or recurrent lead dislodgement (n = 2). All epicardial procedures under general anesthesia with one-lung ventilation were successfully completed in 1.0 +/- 0.4 h without phrenic nerve stimulation. LV pacing thresholds in the epicardial-LV (1.5 +/- 1.0 V) and endocardial-LV (1.3 +/- 0.8 V) were comparable (p = 0.651). All patients were discharged alive post-VATS 8.8 +/- 3.9 days. During the follow-up (34.3 +/- 28.6 months), all patients with epicardial LV leads stayed alive except for one cardiac death post-CRT 14 months and one heart transplantation post-CRT 30 months. All epicardial LV leads maintained stable performance without dislodgement/significant changes in pacing threshold/impedance. LV lead dislodgement occurred only in endocardial-LV (7/243, 2.9%). Efficacy in both groups was comparable in terms of QRS narrowing, increase in LV ejection fraction, and survival free of cardiac death, or heart-failure-related hospitalization. (4) Conclusions: Epicardial LV lead placement using VATS can be a safe and effective alternative to endocardial implantation, with comparable acute and post-discharge outcomes achieved by both approaches.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - ETC > Journal Articles

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.