Department School of Medicine(Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital), School of Medicine Position Endowed Associate Professor
|Article types||Original article|
|Peer review||Peer reviewed|
|Title||Acute and Long-Term Outcomes of Transvenous Cardiac Pacing Device Implantation in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease|
|Journal||Formal name：Circulation Reports|
|Domestic / Foregin||Domestic|
|Publisher||The Japanese Circulation Society|
|Volume, Issue, Page||1(10),pp.445-455|
|Author and coauthor||TAKEUCHI Daiji†, TOYOHARA Keiko, YAGISHITA Daigo, YAZAKI Kyoichiro, HIGUCHI Satoshi, EJIMA Koichiro, SHODA Morio*, HAGIWARA Nobuhisa|
|Summary||Background: Little is known about the acute/long-term outcomes of implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) using a transvenous approach for patients with congenital heart disease (CHD).
Methods and Results: We retrospectively investigated the acute/long-term results and complications associated with transvenous CIED implantation in 140 patients with CHD. We implanted 77 pacemakers, 51 implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), and 12 cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. Although we successfully implanted pacemakers and ICD in all patients, we could not place a coronary sinus (CS) lead in 25% of the patients requiring CRT devices due to coronary vein anomalies associated with corrected transposition of the great arteries (cTGA). Overall complication rate, lead failure rate, and incidence of device infection were 16%, 9%, and 0.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in overall complication rates between the simple (n=22) and complex CHD (n=118) groups (14% vs. 16%). The 10-year lead survival for the ICD leads (77%) was significantly lower than for the pacemaker leads (91%, P=0.0065).
Conclusions: The outcomes of transvenous CIED in patients with CHD seemed acceptable, although there was a relatively high incidence of complications. CS lead placement for cTGA may be hindered by coronary vein anomalies. Lead survival tended to be lower for ICD than for pacemakers in these patients.