Long-Term Performance of Epicardial versus Transvenous Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Aims: to study the technical performance of epicardial left ventricular (LV) leads placed via video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), compared to transvenously placed leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods: From 2001 until 2013, a total of 644 lead placement procedures were performed for CRT. In the case of unsuccessful transvenous LV lead placement, the patient received an epicardial LV lead. Study groups consist of 578 patients with a transvenous LV lead and 66 with an epicardial LV lead. The primary endpoint was LV-lead failure necessitating a replacement or deactivation. The secondary endpoint was energy consumption. Results: The mean follow up was 5.9 years (epicardial: 5.5 +/- 3.1, transvenous: 5.9 +/- 3.5). Transvenous leads failed significantly more frequently than epicardial leads with a total of 66 (11%) in the transvenous leads group vs. 2 (3%) in the epicardial lead group (p = 0.037). Lead energy consumption was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Epicardial lead placement is feasible, safe and shows excellent long-term performance compared to transvenous leads. Epicardial lead placement should be considered when primary transvenous lead placement fails or as a primary lead placement strategy in challenging cases.

Automated summary

This study compares the technical performance between epicardial left ventricular (LV) leads placed via video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and transvenously placed leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The results show that epicardial lead placement has lower failure rate and better long-term performance compared to transvenous leads. Therefore, epicardial lead placement should be considered when transvenous lead placement fails or in challenging cases.