The results of clinical trials show that up to one-third of patients who are eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) do not benefit from biventricular pacing. The reasons vary, including technical problems related to left ventricle pacing lead placement in the appropriate branch of the coronary sinus. Herein, we present a case report of a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, in whom a poor coronary sinus bed made implantation of classic biventricular CRT impossible, but in whom, alternatively, rescue-performed left bundle branch area pacing allowed effective electrical and mechanical cardiac resynchronization.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThere are reports documenting that electromagnetic waves generated by deep brain stimulation devices can interfere with cardiac pacemakers. This might be even a life-threatening problem in cardiac pacemaker-dependent patients. Herein, we present a case report on a patient with bilaterally implanted deep brain stimulation devices, who concomitantly had the indications for permanent cardiac pacing.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWe compared the effects of right ventricular (RVP; = 26) and His bundle (HBP; = 24) pacing in patients with atrioventricular conduction disorders and preserved LVEF. Postoperatively (1D), and after six months (6M), the patients underwent global longitudinal strain (GLS) and peak systolic dispersion (PSD) evaluation with 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography, assessment of left atrial volume index (LAVI) and QRS duration (QRSd), and sensing/pacing parameter testing. The RVP threshold was lower than the HBP threshold at 1D (0.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF