Left ventricular endocardial pacing in the real world: Five years of experience at a single center.

BACKGROUND: A left ventricular (LV) endocardial lead implant to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is feasible when a conventional implant failed due to anatomical or technical issues or when the venous implant was performed but the patient did not respond to therapy.

METHODS: Data about the implantation procedure (age, sex, clinical characteristics, anticoagulant use, previous devices), patient characteristics (indication, technique used, lead model, complications), and follow-up (clinical and echocardiographic outcome, LV lead electrical measurements) were analyzed for all CRT systems implanted using LV endocardial lead, due to failed conventional implant or non-response, between April 2011 and November 2016.

RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were implanted with an active fixation LV endocardial lead during the study period, without significant complications. There were no dislodgments or severe complications related to the implant procedure in the follow-up period (36±20 months) and a high percentage of patients responded to therapy, as assessed by several indicators.

CONCLUSIONS: A LV endocardial lead implant was feasible when the conventional technique had previously failed or was not effective. A high rate of response was achieved without significant complications. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.