4.1 Article

Left ventricular endocardial pacing: A transarterial approach

期刊

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 12, 页码 1464-1468

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00892.x

关键词

left ventricular pacing; thromboembolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: We tested the feasibility of a new technique of direct left ventricular endocardial lead placement across the aortic valve in a chronic (six month) pig model. The potential for aortic valve damage, systemic embolization, and pacing lead maturation and function within the left ventricle are unknown. Methods: Ten minipigs were successfully implanted with a transaortic left ventricular lead (Medtronic CapSureFix (R), Minneapolis, MN, USA) placed in the left ventricular apex via the carotid artery. Each pig received either a polyurethane (n = 5) or silicone (n = 5) lead. Post implant each pig received clopidogrel and aspirin for seven days. After six months all surviving pigs underwent thorough necropsy. Results: Each pig had adequate sensing (12.1 +/- 4 mV) and pacing thresholds (0.79 +/- 0.2 @ 0.5 V) at implant. Postoperatively two pigs died of a respiratory illness. One pig died postoperatively due to sepsis. At the six-month follow-up, all surviving pigs (n = 7) were in a healthy state. Of the pigs without dislodgement (n = 5) there was adequate sensing, but a rise in pacing thresholds. Echocardiography revealed a normal ejection fraction and only trace to mild aortic insufficiency in all pigs. Of the seven surviving pigs there were no thromboembolic events noted. One silicone lead was noted to have thrombosis along the lead screw and shaft. Conclusion: Direct transaortic placement of a left ventricular lead is feasible. After six months, there was no significant aortic regurgitation and no evidence of thromboembolism despite no anticoagulation. Lead function was acceptable and only one silicone lead (and no polyurethane lead) was noted to have significant thrombosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据