Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/9864
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorO'Donnell, Den
dc.contributor.authorNadurata, Ven
dc.contributor.authorHamer, Aen
dc.contributor.authorKertes, Pen
dc.contributor.authorMohamed, Uen
dc.contributor.authorMohammed, Wen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-15T23:07:54Z
dc.date.available2015-05-15T23:07:54Z
dc.date.issued2005-01-01en
dc.identifier.citationPacing and Clinical Electrophysiology : Pace; 28 Suppl 1(): S27-30en
dc.identifier.govdoc15683513en
dc.identifier.otherPUBMEDen
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/9864en
dc.description.abstractBiventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with a lateral left ventricular (LV) lead cannot always be achieved. We report a single center experience of CRT utilizing a protocol that specifically required the implantation of a bifocal right ventricular (RV) lead system when lateral LV pacing could not be achieved. Consecutive candidates for CRT were included in the study. If strict criteria for lateral LV pacing were not met, they underwent implantation of a bifocal RV lead system with two 7F, active fixation leads, one placed septally at the apex, and the other in the high septal outflow tract. All patients were followed for 12 months and the two groups were compared. A biventricular (BiV) stimulation system was implanted in 44 patients, and a bifocal RV system in six. The demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Both groups experienced a similar improvement in functional capacity, increase in 6 minutes walking distance, and decreased need for hospitalizations. The mean increase in LV ejection fraction was 11% in the bifocal RV group versus 10% in the BiV group. Though the tissue Doppler indices of LV synchrony improved earlier in the BiV group, (19% vs 10%) the improvement was similar in both groups at 6 months (23% vs 20%). The clinical improvements conferred by CRT can be matched by a bifocal RV system in selected patients. This alternate approach should be considered when implantation of a LV lateral lead was unsuccessful.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.otherAgeden
dc.subject.otherCardiac Pacing, Artificial.methodsen
dc.subject.otherCardiac Surgical Procedures.methodsen
dc.subject.otherCoronary Vesselsen
dc.subject.otherFemaleen
dc.subject.otherHeart Failure.therapyen
dc.subject.otherHumansen
dc.subject.otherMaleen
dc.subject.otherMiddle Ageden
dc.subject.otherTreatment Failureen
dc.titleBifocal right ventricular cardiac resynchronization therapies in patients with unsuccessful percutaneous lateral left ventricular venous access.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACEen
dc.identifier.affiliationElectrophysiology Unit, Austin Health, Studley Road, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.00069.xen
dc.description.pagesS27-30en
dc.relation.urlhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15683513en
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen
local.name.researcherO'Donnell, David
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.deptCardiology-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

28
checked on Nov 27, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.