Skip Navigation

Europace 2009 11(11):1491-1495; doi:10.1093/europace/eup292
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Khan, F. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Dutka, D. P.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Khan, F. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Dutka, D. P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2009. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.


Pacing and CRT

Characterization of the suitability of coronary venous anatomy for targeting left ventricular lead placement in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy

Fakhar Zaman Khan1, Munmohan Singh Virdee2, Deepa Gopalan1, James Rudd1, Timothy Watson1, Simon Patrick Fynn2 and David Paul Dutka1,*

1 Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 110, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK; 2 Papworth Hospital, Papworth Everard, Cambridge CB23 8RE, UK

Aims: Recent studies suggest differences in coronary venous anatomy between patients with ischaemic (I) and non-ischaemic (N) cardiomyopathy. We hypothesize that these differences may affect the potential for left ventricular (LV) lead targeting in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Methods and results: The retrograde contrast venograms were retrospectively reviewed in 133 patients (age 68 ± 9 years, 101 males). The quantity and distribution of veins were recorded as well as the final lead position. There were no major differences in the distribution of LV lead positions between I and N [posterior vein, 14.0% (I) vs. 15.8% (N); posterolateral vein, 21.1 vs. 18.4%; lateral vein, 59.7 vs. 50.0%; anterolateral vein, 3.5 vs. 13.2%; P= NS]. Excluding the middle and great cardiac veins, in total only 59 of 133 patients had more than one suitable vein as potential targets for LV lead placement (I, 36.8% vs. N, 50.0%; P = 0.16).

Conclusion: Underlying aetiology does not affect the quantity and distribution of coronary veins available for LV lead placement. The limitations of venous anatomy restrict LV lead placement to a single vein with little scope for site selection in almost half of all the patients. Given these limitations, in many patients, prospective targeting of LV lead placement may require a direct surgical approach.

Key Words: Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Coronary veins, Left ventricular lead placement


* Corresponding author. Tel: +44 1223 762583, Fax: +44 1223 331505, Email: dpd24{at}cam.ac.uk

Manuscript submitted 26 October 2008. Accepted after revision 7 September 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.