Europace Advance Access originally published online on November 30, 2007
Europace 2008 10(1):121-122; doi:10.1093/europace/eum255
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LETTERS
Concerns about the long-term outcome of transseptal cardiac resynchronization therapy: what we have learned from surgical experience
Gottsegen Gyorgy HungarianInstitute of Cardiology
Budapest
Hungary
Gottsegen Gyorgy HungarianInstitute of Cardiology
Haller utca 29
1096 Budapest
Hungary
Tel: +31 655 547 853
Fax: +36 1 2151220/ ext 413E-mail address: szili.torok{at}kardio.hu
We read with a great interest the report of Nuta et al.1
in which, an alternative technique is described for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Indeed, this method becomes more and more utilized for pacing of the free-wall of the left ventricle (LV) in patients when epicardial approach failed.2,3 After standard transseptal puncture and septal dilatation via the femoral route, the left atrium is cannulated with a combination of catheters and guide wires from the left or right subclavian vein. After advancement of this guiding catheter into the LV, a standard bipolar screw-in lead could be implanted in the posterolateral wall. Obviously, these patients require life-long oral anticoagulation after such a procedure.1–3 It is not a big surprise that with a significant failure rate reported using the coronary sinus tributaries, alternative pacing techniques are being searched for CRT. However, the above-described technique has more possible limitations that mentioned by the authors. First, a foreign body enters from the right atrium into the left side of the heart through a continuously open connection. More importantly, there is a close and permanent contact with the mitral valve apparatus. This definitely increases the risk of infected endocarditis, involving the mitral valve itself. Moreover, when it happens the outcome is presumably even more deleterious than the potentially lethal right-sided pacemaker endocarditis. Although reports are not available on this subject, conclusions can be drawn from previous surgical experience. Interestingly enough, more and more reports confirm that the number of device related infections show instantaneous increment in the past two decades.4,5 Pacing system related endocarditis and its consequences are well described.6 Essential step of the treatment on the right side is complete removal of the pacing system, which requires sometimes high-tech technology.7,8 After removal of the foreign body, the disease can be treated with acceptable results by antibiotics, as in any other aetiology of right-sided endocarditis. We must emphasize the fact on the other hand, that significantly worse outcome is expected, when endocarditis involves the valves of the left side. This location of the disease remains with high mortality and morbidity against the novel treatment options, as showed by the most recent studies.9,10 On top of that, the consequence of septic embolization into the systemic circulation (brain vessels, coronaries, supplying arteries of parenchymal intra- and retroabdominal organs, and gastrointestinal territory) can be fatal. Abscess formations in the target tissues and organs such as in the brain, myocardium, liver, lien, kidneys, etc. are all very severe conditions, which simply not comparable with right-sided pathologies. The obligatory anticoagulation therapy decreases the healing possibilities of these secondary infected, abscessed tissues.11 The infected mitral valve very often needs surgery itself. This is somewhat of a paradox, since most of these indications are based on inoperability of the patient.1–3 Beyond this, under these special conditions mitral valve surgery carries a higher risk for mortality and morbidity.12 We note that most of the above mentioned implantations were performed as last remaining option for the patients. With this present correspondence, we would like to draw attention to the possible drawbacks of this otherwise elegant technique. We do believe that more liberal utilization of this method requires more data on safety and should probably done under strict research protocols.
 |
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
[1] Nuta B, Lines I, Macintyre I, Haywood GA. Biventricular ICD implant using endocardial LV lead placement from the left subclavian vein approach and transseptal puncture via the transfemoral route. Europace (2007) Europace Advance Access published August 17.
[2] Gelder BM, Scheffer MG, Meijer A, Bracke FA. Transseptal endocardial left ventricular pacing: an alternative technique for coronary sinus lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm (2007) 4:454–60.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[3] Jaïs P, Takahashi A, Garrigue S, Yamane T, Hocini M, Shah DC, et al. Mid-term follow-up of endocardial biventricular pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2000) 23:1744–7.[Medline]
[4] Baddour LM, Bettmann MA, Bolger AF, Epstein AE, Ferrieri P, Gerber MA, et al. Nonvalvular cardiovascular device-related infections. Circulation (2003) 108:2015–31.
[5] Cabell CH, Heidenreich PA, Chu VH, Moore CM, Stryjewski ME, Corey GR, et al. Increasing rates of cardiac device infections among medicare beneficiaries: 1990–1999. Am Heart J (2004) 147:587–92.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[6] Klug D, Balde M, Pavin D, Hidden-Lucet F, Clementy J, Sadoul N, et al. Risk factors related to infections of implanted pacemakers and cardioverter-defibrillators: results of a large prospective study. Circulation (2007) 116:1349–55.
[7] Chang J-P, Chen M-C, Guo GB-F, Kao C-L. Less-invasive surgical extraction of problematic or infected permanent transvenous pacemaker system. Ann Thorac Surg (2005) 79:1250–54.
[8] PLESSE investigators. Laser-assisted lead extraction: the European experience. Europace (2007) 9:651–6.
[9] Heiro M, Helenius H, Hurme S, Savunen T, Engblom E, Nikoskelainen J, et al. Short-term and one-year outcome of infective endocarditis in adult patients treated in a Finnish teaching hospital during 1980–2004. BMC Infect Dis (2007) 7:1471–2334.
[10] Musci M, Siniawski H, Pasic M, Grauhan O, Weng Y, Meyer R, et al. Surgical treatment of right-sided active infective endocarditis with or without involvement of the left heart: 20-year single center experience. Eur J Cardiothor Surg (2007) 32:118–25.
[11] Thuny F, Avierinos J-F, Tribouilloy C, Giorgi R, Casalta J-P, Milandre L, et al. Impact of cerebrovascular complications on mortality and neurologic outcome during infective endocarditis: a prospective multicentre study. Eur Heart J (2007) 28:1155–61.
[12] Netzer ROM, Altwegg SC, Zollinger E, Täuber M, Carrel T, Seiler C. Infective endocarditis: determinants of long term outcome. Heart (2002) 88:61–6.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  I. Kassai, C. Foldesi, A. Szekely, and T. Szili-Torok Alternative method for cardiac resynchronization: transapical lead implantation. Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2009; 87(2): 650 - 652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Kassai, C. Foldesi, A. Szekely, and T. Szili-Torok New method for cardiac resynchronization therapy: transapical endocardial lead implantation for left ventricular free wall pacing Europace, July 1, 2008; 10(7): 882 - 883. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||