AIMS:To investigate the abnormalities of the coronary venous system in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and describe methods for circumventing the resulting difficulties.METHODS:From four implanting institutes, data of all CRT implants between October 2008 and October 2020 were screened for abnormal cardiac venous anatomy, defined as an anatomical variation not conforming to the accepted 'normal' anatomy. Patient demographics, procedural detail, and subsequent left ventricle (LV) lead pacing indices were collected.RESULTS:From a total of 3548 CRT implants, 15 (0.42%) patients (80% male) of 72.2 ± 10.6 years in age with an LV ejection fraction of 34 ± 10.3% were identified to have had an abnormal cardiac venous anatomy over the study period. There were 13 cases of persistent left side superior vena cava (pLSVC), five of which had coronary sinus ostium atresia (CSOA) including two with an "unroofed" coronary sinus (CS); one patient had a unique anomalous origin of the CS and one patient had an isolated CSOA. In total 14 patients (60% repeat attempt) had successful percutaneous implant under general anesthesia (46.7%) via the cephalic vein (59.1%), using the femoral approach (53.3%) for levophase venography and/or pull-through, including one case of endocardial LV implant. Pacing follow-up over 37.64 ± 37.6 months demonstrated LV lead threshold between 0.62 and 2.9 volts (pulsewidth 0.4-1.5 ms) in all cases; five patients died within 2.92 ± 1.6 years of a successful implant.CONCLUSION:CRT devices can be implanted percutaneously even in the presence of substantial abnormalities of coronary venous anatomy. Alternative routes of venous access may be required.

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is the cornerstone of heart failure management. Delivery of a left ventricular lead can occur in a small proportion of patients undermining the benefits of this treatment. Abnormal coronary venous anatomy is a contributing factor to this failure. Although epicardial lead placement is available, this patient cohort requiring CRT is subject to higher peri-operative morbidity and mortality than the general population; a transvenous approach is preferable. Purpose To investigate the abnormalities of the coronary venous system in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and describe methods for circumventing the resulting difficulties. Methods From 4 implanting institutes, data of all CRT implants between October 2008-October 2020 were screened for abnormal cardiac venous anatomy, defined as an anatomical variation not conforming to the accepted ‘normal’ anatomy. Patient demographics, procedural detail and subsequent left ventricle (LV) lead pacing indices were collected. Results From a total of 3548 CRT implants, 15 (0.42%) patients (80% male) of 72.2±10.6 years in age with a LV ejection fraction of 34±10.3% were identified to have had an abnormal cardiac venous anatomy over the study period. There were 13 cases of persistent left side superior vena cava (pLSVC), 5 of which had coronary sinus ostium atresia (CSOA) including 2 with an ‘unroofed’ coronary sinus (CS); 1 patient had a unique anomalous origin of the CS and 1 patient had an isolated CSOA. In total 14 patients (60% repeat attempt) had successful percutaneous implant under general anaesthesia (46.7%) via the cephalic vein (59.1%), using the femoral approach (53.3%) for levophase venography and/or pull-through, including 1 case of endocardial LV implant. Pacing follow-up over 37.64±37.6 months demonstrated LV lead threshold between 0.62-2.9 volts (pulsewidth 0.4-1.5 milliseconds) in all cases; 5 patients died within 2.92±1.6 years of successful implant. Conclusion CRT devices can be implanted percutaneously even in the presence of substantial abnormalities of coronary venous anatomy. Alternative routes of venous access may be required.

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Cardiac perforation is an uncommon but life-threatening complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Management strategy commonly relies on diagnostic Computed Tomography (CT) imaging and cardiac surgery. Emerging evidence has indicated a diversion from this approach. Transvenous culprit lead revision has been shown to be safe and efficacious in limited series. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transvenous lead revision in patients with cardiac perforation. Method Data was collected retrospectively of patients admitted to a single tertiary centre with CIED-related cardiac perforation between December 2013 – October 2019. Transvenous lead revision was performed as standard with cardiac surgery on standby. Patient demographics, use of CT imaging, method of removal and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results Of the 46 recorded CIED-related cardiac perforations, the majority occurred in female patients (63%) and hypertensives (61%), whilst a proportion had cancer (20%) and ischaemic heart disease (30%). The culprit in most cases was a standard pacing lead (92%) of an active fixation (98%) in the right ventricle (80%) positioned at the ventricular apex (65%). The median time to presentation from implant was 14 days [IQR 4-50 days] with chest pain (44%); abnormal pacing indices was highly prevalent (95%) whilst a pericardial effusion was noted in the majority of cases (57%). CT scanning was performed in 19 cases (41%) for various indications but deemed essential in only 4, all of which had non-diagnostic pacing indices and imaging. Chest X-ray (CXR) found clear perforation, lead displacement or pleural effusion in 74% of cases, whilst an echocardiogram found these in 64% of cases. The culprit lead was replaced in the majority of cases (87%) under local anaesthesia (76%) with surgical backup. The median hospital stay was 7 days [IQR 3-10 days] with zero procedural and 30-day mortality. Conclusion Transvenous lead revision for CIED-related cardiac perforation is safe and efficacious. CT modality for diagnostic purposes is useful in providing incremental value in a minority of cases; patients with non-diagnostic pacing parameters and non-CT imaging benefit most from this.

The presence of supraventricular tachycardia is the leading cause of inappropriate shock in ICD recipients, and it can be a significant cause of morbidity, psychological distress and worsened clinical outcome. Modern pacing and ICD systems offer a number of discriminators that are integrated into algorithms to differentiate sustained ventricular tachycardia from supraventricular tachycardia. These algorithms can be adapted and optimised for each individual patient to ensure that only those arrhythmias that need treatment through the use of an ICD, are actually treated. This review summarises the single- and dual-chamber discriminators that can be used in the detection and classification of tachyarrhythmias.

BACKGROUND:Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation via the cephalic vein is feasible and safe. Recent evidence has suggested a higher implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead failure in multi-lead defibrillator therapy via the cephalic route. We evaluated the relationship between CRT-D implantation via the cephalic and ICD lead failure.METHODS:Data was collected from three CRT-D implanting centers between October 2008 and September 2017. In total 633 patients were included. Patient and lead characteristics with ICD lead failure were recorded. Comparison of "cephalic" (ICD lead via cephalic) versus "non-cephalic" (ICD lead via non-cephalic route) cohorts was performed. Kaplan-Meier survival and a Cox-regression analysis were applied to assess variables associated with lead failure.RESULTS:The cephalic and non-cephalic cohorts were equally male (81.9% vs. 78%; p = .26), similar in age (69.7 ± 11.5 vs. 68.7 ± 11.9; p = .33) and body mass index (BMI) (27.7 ± 5.1 vs. 27.1 ± 5.7; p = .33). Most ICD leads were implanted via the cephalic vein (73.5%) and patients had a mean of 2.9 ± 0.28 leads implanted via this route. The rate of ICD lead failure was low and statistically similar between both groups (0.36%/year vs. 0.13%/year; p = .12). Female gender was more common in the lead failure cohort than non-failure (55.6% vs. 17.9%, respectively; p = .004) as was hypertension (88.9% vs. 54.2%, respectively, p = .038). On multivariate Cox-regression, female sex (p = .008; HR, 7.12 [1.7-30.2]), and BMI (p = .047; HR, 1.12 [1.001-1.24]) were significantly associated with ICD lead failure.CONCLUSION:CRT-D implantation via the cephalic route is not significantly associated with premature ICD lead failure. Female gender and BMI are predictors of lead failure.

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)‐related perforation is uncommon but potentially lethal. Management typically includes the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning and often involves cardiac surgery.

Background: Cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation via the cephalic vein is feasible and safe.Recent evidence has suggested a higher implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead failure in multi-lead defibrillator therapy via the cephalic route.We evaluated the relationship between CRT-D implantation via the cephalic and ICD lead failure.Methods: Data was collected from three CRT-D implanting centres between October 2008 -September 2017.In total 631 patients were included.Patient and lead characteristics with ICD lead failure were recorded.Comparison of 'cephalic' (ICD lead via cephalic) vs 'non-cephalic' (ICD lead via non-cephalic route) cohorts was performed.Kaplan-Meier survival and a Coxregression analysis were applied to assess variables associated with lead failure.Results: The cephalic and non-cephalic cohorts were equally male (82.2% vs 78.3%, p=0.28), similar in age (69.7±11.5 vs 68.7 ± 11.9, p=0.33) and body mass index (BMI) (27.7±5.1 vs 27.1±5.7,p=0.33).Most ICD leads were implanted via the cephalic vein (73.7%) and patients had a median of 2.8 leads implanted via this route.The rate of ICD lead failure was low and similar between both groups (0.4%/year vs 0.14%/year, p=0.34).Female gender was more common in the lead failure cohort than non-failure (50% vs 18.2%, respectively, p=0.01) as was hypertension (90% vs 54%, respectively, p=0.03).On multivariate Cox regression, female sex (p=0.007),hypertension (p=0.041) and BMI (p=0.042) were significantly associated with ICD lead failure.Conclusion: CRT-D implantation via the cephalic route is not associated with premature ICD lead failure.Female gender, BMI and hypertension correlate with lead failure.