Phrenic stimulation management in CRT patients: are we there yet?
- 1 January 2011
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Current Opinion in Cardiology
- Vol. 26 (1), 12-16
- https://doi.org/10.1097/hco.0b013e3283413838
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:\ud \ud Phrenic stimulation may hinder left-ventricular (LV) stimulation and prevent cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery. We reviewed the literature to address its prevalence and clinical implications in CRT patients.\ud RECENT FINDINGS:\ud \ud Phrenic stimulation prevalence ranges from 20 to 33% of patients when a posterolateral LV lead placement is aimed. False-negatives are common during implantation, sensitivity being about 60-80%. Symptoms may dictate repositioning the LV lead, meaning risk of lead dislodgement, decreased CRT efficacy, or high LV threshold. CRT turn-off occurred in 2% of patients because of refractory phrenic stimulation. Several strategies have been used to manage phrenic stimulation: whereas lead repositioning was the only one available in early CRT experience, the use of bipolar/multipolar leads combined with cathode programmability enabling several pacing configurations has made possible targeting the optimal LV pacing sites in nearly all patients.Despite technological improvements, phrenic stimulation symptoms are sporadically reported by 6-8% of patients at follow-up, meaning that there is still an unmet need to address this problem.\ud SUMMARY:\ud \ud Phrenic stimulation needs to be carefully managed at implantation and follow-up. Use of bipolar/multipolar leads and of multiple pacing configurations is mandatory to increase the chances of managing phrenic stimulation. Active fixation LV leads, hopefully bipolar, could further increase the success rateKeywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Characteristics of heart failure patients associated with good and poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a PROSPECT (Predictors of Response to CRT) sub-analysisEuropean Heart Journal, 2009
- Magnetic resonance imaging and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: relative merits of left ventricular dyssynchrony and scar tissueEuropean Heart Journal, 2009
- Long-Term Prognosis After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Is Related to the Extent of Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling at Midterm Follow-UpJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2009
- Optimal Left Ventricular Lead Position Predicts Reverse Remodeling and Survival After Cardiac Resynchronization TherapyJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2008
- Exercise stress echocardiography is superior to rest echocardiography in predicting left ventricular reverse remodelling and functional improvement after cardiac resynchronization therapyEuropean Heart Journal, 2008
- Results of the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) TrialCirculation, 2008
- Left ventricular pacing site in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Clinical follow‐up and predictors of failed lateral implantEuropean Journal of Heart Failure, 2008
- Effect of Posterolateral Scar Tissue on Clinical and Echocardiographic Improvement After Cardiac Resynchronization TherapyCirculation, 2006
- Epicardial left ventricular lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy: optimal pace site selection with pressure-volume loopsThe Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2004
- Effect of Resynchronization Therapy Stimulation Site on the Systolic Function of Heart Failure PatientsCirculation, 2001