トヨハラ　ケイコ   TOYOHARA KEIKO
  豊原　啓子
   所属   医学部 医学科（東京女子医科大学病院）
   職種   助教
Article types Original article
Language English
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
Abbreviation：Circ Rep
ISSN code：24340790
Domestic / ForeginDomestic
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
Publication date 2019/10
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.
DOI https://doi.org/10.1253/circrep.CR-19-0069