Complications of epi- and endocardial pacing in children

Abstract Aim To analyze complications of cardiac pacing in children depending on the implantation method. Actuality Recently epicardial lead implantation becomes more and more popular either due to more serious complications of transvenous pacing or due to possibility of choice of hemodynamically optimal pacing zone. Methods and materials 242 patients with pacemakers are under our supervision. Epicardial pacemakers were implanted to 145 patients, endocardial – to 97 patients. In “old era” in most children the primary epicardial implantations were performed at RV free wall. In 27 children, having primary implantation at our Institute lately, the epicardial lead was placed at LV apex, or endocardial – at RV apex. Results The comparative analysis of complications of epi- and endocardial implantation showed the following results: 22% of complications at epicardial stimulation, and at transvenous stimulation – 45%. The most often complications at epicardial stimulation (53%) were connected with hemodynamic disorders – dyssinchronous cardiomyopathy. Hemodynamic complications, connected with dyssinchrony of endocardial RV pacing, were disclosed in 16%. The most often complication of endocardial stimulation was TV insufficiency (32%). Venous vessel thrombosis was diagnosed in 9%. Epicardial and transvenous lead failure was discovered in similar percentage ratio (28%). Infectious complications of transvenous pacing, especially, bacterial endocarditis, took place in 6,8%. Thus, progressive bacterial endocarditis and TV insufficiency (3d deg.) appeared in one patient in 10 years after the primary implantation. Afterwards, elimination of endocardial system by open surgery, TV plasty followed by epicardial pacing implantation are required. Infection of pacing site was disclosed in both types of implantation (1%). Perforation of atrial endocardial lead was found in two cases (4%). A case of mechanical complication (cardiac strangulation) was diagnosed in a child (3%) in four years after the primary implantation of epicardial pacing system. Pericarditis was recorded immediately after the epicardil pacemaker implantation in 9% of cases. Our center performs epicardial lead implantation with the help of midline sternotomy that provides clear approach to right atrium. However, the difficulties of lead fixation at LV apex appear here. It concerns, especially, the patients after CHD correction as the repeated sternotomy in them presents high risk of RV insufficiency. Nevertheless, the given approach is still the best possible with epicardial pacing if there is a “preclude”, sufficient experience of CHD correction. Conclusion The possibility of choice of optimal epicardial pacing site exceeds risks of leads and midline sternotomy. Any primary pacemaker implantation in children of any age with ventricular lead should be epicardial. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Download Full-text

P512New approaches to pacing in children with atrioventricular block

EP Europace ◽

10.1093/europace/euaa162.199 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

E Polyakova ◽

E Kulbachinskaya ◽

I Grishin ◽

S Termosesov ◽

M Shkolnikova

Keyword(s):

Atrioventricular Block ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Operation Time ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Video Assisted ◽

Epicardial Lead ◽

Lead Placement ◽

Ventricular Lead ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction The placement of permanent pacemaker is presented as one of the most appropriate procedures in patients with congenital complete atrioventricular block (AVB). Despite video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for epicardial lead placement has demonstrated positive results concerning the feasibility and freedom of complications in adults, its role in pacemaker implantation in children remains unclear. The study aimed to assess the intermediate-term outcomes of video-assisted thoracic pacing in children with congenital complete AVB. Methods From May 2017 to November 2018, six children with complete idiopathic AVB underwent minimally invasive left ventricular lead placements via thoracoscopic video assistance. The procedure was performed under complex intratracheal anesthesia with single-lung ventilation, median operation time was 180 minutes (120–240). Four incisions were made, three of them were used to place the lead on the left ventricular, and one was needed to place the device. All pacing parameters were evaluated in perioperative and follow-up periods. Results Median age at implantation was 3 years (2 to 15 years), median weight 13 kg (12–46 kg). All procedures were completed successfully, pacing thresholds for the active lead measured 0.5-1.1V, with R-wave amplitude of 8-18 mV and impedance of 404-1478 Ohm. Increasing pacing thresholds in the third month after pacemaker implantation occurred in one patient, so anti-inflammatory therapy was assigned. Satisfactory thresholds and impedances with no significant difference with initial values were obtained at the median follow-up of 21 months (range: 10–28 months). Conclusion Video-assisted thoracic pacing may provide a potential alternative to the transthoracic approach of epicardial lead placement in children with congenital AVB.

Download Full-text

Abstract 17088: In-Hospital Complications and Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis From Nationwide Database

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.142.suppl_3.17088 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽

Author(s):

Moghniuddin Mohammed ◽

Amit Noheria ◽

Seth Sheldon ◽

Madhu Reddy

Keyword(s):

Propensity Score ◽

Propensity Score Matching ◽

Real World ◽

Electronic Device ◽

Artery Bypass ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Leadless Pacemaker ◽

Ventricular Lead ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Before And After

Introduction: There are no randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of leadless pacemaker (L-PPM) implantation with transvenous pacemaker (TV-PPM) and there is scarcity of data on real world outcomes. Methods: We queried National Inpatient Sample to identify all adult patients who had primary discharge diagnosis of conduction disorders or tachy-arrhythmias and excluded patients who had a concomitant procedure for valve replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting, ablation and/or cardiac implantable electronic device removal so that complications can be attributed to the pacemaker implantation. We included only procedures from November 2016 to December 2017 as Micra was the only available L-PPM during that period. For the comparison cohort we selected patients, during the same time period, who had a procedure code for single chamber pacemaker implantation in conjunction with right ventricular lead placement. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching and the variables used for matching are marked with asterisk in Table 1. All the codes used to identify complications has been previously validated from the Micra Post-approval registry and Coverage with Evidence Study. Results: Total of 1,305 patients for L-PPM and 13,905 patients in the TV-PPM group were included. Baseline characteristics with standardized mean difference before and after matching are shown in Table 1. Briefly, patients in L-PPM group were younger but had higher co-morbidities compared to TV-PPM group. The complications before and after matching are shown in Table 2. Conclusions: In conclusion, we found no significant difference between in-hospital complications after propensity score matching, with the exception of deep venous thrombosis. There was no difference between length of stay but cost for L-PPM was significantly higher. In this real-world analysis, we found that the leadless PPM implantation is safe in comparison to transvenous PPM.

Download Full-text

Left ventricular lead fixation during biventricular pacemaker implantation by coronary sinus branch stenting – case series presentation

Cardiologia Croatica ◽

10.15836/ccar.2014.369 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 9 (9-10) ◽

pp. 369-369

Author(s):

Zorislav Susak ◽

Ante Anic ◽

Zoran Bakotic ◽

Albino Jovic

Keyword(s):

Coronary Sinus ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Case Series ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Left Ventricular Lead ◽

Biventricular Pacemaker ◽

Ventricular Lead ◽

Lead Fixation

Download Full-text

Cardiac Pacing in Children

AACN Advanced Critical Care ◽

10.4037/15597768-1991-1023 ◽

1991 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 150-155

Author(s):

Patricia A. Lawrence

Keyword(s):

Lithium Batteries ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Cardiac Pacing ◽

Permanent Pacemaker ◽

Infants And Children ◽

Permanent Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Common Causes ◽

Technical Challenges ◽

Pacemaker Complications ◽

In Infants And Children

Advances in pacemaker technology over the last 25 years have made cardiac pacing in infants and children a safe and practical therapy. Some of the technical challenges encountered with the first permanent pacemaker implantation in children during the early 1960s have been solved with miniaturized generators, lithium batteries, noninvasive programmability, and improved placement techniques.1–3 This chapter reports common causes of bradydysrhythmias in children, reviews the indications for permanent pacemaker implantation in children, describes current pacing systems appropriate for children, and identifies nursing implications and potential pacemaker complications unique to children

Download Full-text