Article

Pacing the Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Septum - Are We There Yet?

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

DOI:https://doi.org/10.15420/apc.2007:1:1:57

Copyright Statement:

The copyright in this work belongs to Radcliffe Medical Media. Only articles clearly marked with the CC BY-NC logo are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC BY-NC option was not available for Radcliffe journals before 1 January 2019. Articles marked ‘Open Access’ but not marked ‘CC BY-NC’ are made freely accessible at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution. Permission is required for reuse of this content.

Since the introduction of transvenous cardiac pacing almost 50 years ago,1 the right ventricular (RV) apex has been the preferred site for ventricular lead attachment due to the ease of placement, stability, reliability and lead design. Unfortunately, pacing from the RV apex produces an abnormal late activation of the lateral wall of the left ventricle (LV),2 with ventricular remodelling resuling from neurohormonal and electrophysiological changes. This induces differential muscle strain3 and fibre shortening, which in turn increase myocardial work4 and oxygen consumption.5 The resultant changes in cardiac haemodynamics6,7 cause LV cellular abnormalities at both a gross and ultrastructural level,8 and ultimately lead to ventricular dilatation and impaired lusitropy.

Clinically, there is a higher risk of development of LV dysfunction,9,10 heart failure11,12 and atrial fibrillation.13 These observations have led to an interest in selective non-apical RV pacing sites in order to achieve a less eccentric and more physiological pattern of ventricular activation.12,14,15 To date, the alternative sites for RV pacing have included the low interventricular septum, mid-septum, His-bundle16,17 and RV outflow tract (RVOT). Some of the difficulties encountered with lead placement in these areas relate to the lack of suitable lead technology, the non-standardised nomenclature and difficulty with consistent, accurate and reliable placement of leads in the selected position.

The most studied of these selective sites has been the RVOT, with increasing focus on the septal aspect of this structure. Unil recently, true RVOT septal pacing has been difficult to achieve. We now have a much better understanding of the relationship between the electrocardiograph, fluoroscopy and the anatomy of the RVOT.15,18 This has allowed successful recognition of the lead placement, particularly onto the RVOT septum. It is important to remember that when using standard implantation techniques, the RVOT septum is reached only in 61% of unselected cases, suggesting that new implantation techniques and tools are required.15

The Anatomy of the Right Ventricular Outflow Tract with Relevance to the Pacing Site

The right side of the interventricular septum has been poorly defined in the pacing literature and the term RVOT has been used to describe a variety of pacing sites, including the true outflow tract, the mid-septum and the area above the apex. This confusion persists, despite attempts to standardise the nomenclature of non-apical pacing sites.19,20 The anatomy of the RVOT is complex and includes the septum, the free wall and the anterior wall.

This differentiation is important as activation patterns and wave front propagation will be very different depending on the pacing site from within the RVOT. Improved outcomes, both acutely21–23 and in the medium term,24–26 have been consistently demonstrated with RVOT septal pacing compared with pacing at the RV apex. This is in contrast to the heterogeneous results of studies that did not specify an RVOT pacing site.27–29 Thus, when positioning a lead in the RVOT it is critical that only the septum is considered the target for lead placement.

For purposes of cardiac pacing, the RVOT is bordered by the pulmonic valve superiorly and the superior aspect of the tricuspid apparatus inferiorly. In fact, ‘septal RVOT’ is a misnomer in that it abuts the proximal ascending aorta, and thus the upper part of the RVOT ‘septum’ lies above the aortic valve.18,20 Therefore, only the lower or inferior portion of the RVOT septum can be considered as truly septal. The ‘septal’ component of the conus arteriosus is high and smooth-walled and its position makes it both anatomically and electrophysiologically unsuitable for the attachment of a pacing lead. However, below the level of the supraventricular crest (crista supraventricularis) lies the inferior and truly septal portion of the RVOT, which has a cul-de-sac filled with the septoparietal trabeculations and is ideal for active-fixation pacing lead attachment (see Figure 1). Similar to other areas within the RVOT, this area has characteristic paced electrocardiogram (ECG) and radiographic appearances that allow accurate recognition of lead placement.30

Electrocardiogram Correlates of Lead Position in the Right Ventricular Outflow Tract

RVOT septal pacing is associated with shorter QRS durations than anywhere else in the RV and, in particular, the RVOT free wall.15 This suggests that pacing from the septal RVOT, although not as good as intrinsic conduction, may be the most desirable site for chronic RV pacing, as a narrow QRS duration is associated with an improved LV dynamic.23 Pacing from the RVOT septum typically produces a negative or isoelectric vector in lead I. Conversely, a free wall site is associated with a positive vector in lead I as well as a more prolonged QRS duration and notching of the inferior leads, in particular lead III.15

Radiographic Anatomy of the Right Ventricular Outflow Tract

For recognition of RVOT septal lead placement, three views are essential (see Figure 2). The postero-anterior (PA) and the 40º right anterior oblique (RAO) aspects are the best views for guiding the lead into the low RVOT and excluding inadvertent positioning in the coronary sinus and great cardiac vein. Differentiation between the septal and free wall aspects of the RVOT are best defined by the 40º left anterior oblique (LAO) view. The septal position is characterised by a posterior orientation of the lead tip, while the free wall positioning is seen with the lead tip facing anteriorly. A fourth view, the 90º left lateral (LL), is also very valuable, but can be performed only after the operative procedure. A posterior projection of the lead tip indicates septal placement and is 100% specific.15 In comparison, a lead attached to the free wall passes anteriorly towards the sternum.

Lead Selection and Placement on the Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Septum

In order to position a pacing lead on the septal aspect of the RVOT, an active-fixation lead lying within the RVOT must be guided posteriorly. This can be achieved using a thin (4.1-French) lumenless fixed screw-in lead (Select Secure® Medtronic Inc. Minneapolis, US) passed through a steerable 10-French catheter delivery system (Select Site®, Medtronic Inc.). To date, the only data published are concerned with implant safety and electrical performance31 and, because the procedure requires the use of a workstation and a lead unfamiliar to most implanters, specialised training is required and there is a significant learning curve. In contrast, a novel technique to reliably attach a conventional 7- or 8-French active-fixation lead to the RVOT septum has recently been described.30 The technique uses a specially shaped conventional stylet. Leads with the appropriate shape can be inserted from both the left and right sides using either the cephalic or subclavian venous access, and can be deployed onto the RVOT septum in 100% of cases with a rapid learning curve.

Safety and Reliability of the Right Ventricular Outflow Tract for Chronic Right Ventricular Pacing

In our experience of more than 500 cases of stylet-driven leads attached to the RVOT septum, anterior or free walls, no dislodgements have occurred. The result is similar to other reported series.27,32 Within this group, the last 100 cases have all had the leads positioned on the septum. There have been no pacing complications documented.

In particular, there have been no cases of elevated stimulation thresholds or exit block.30 Due to the anatomical position of the electrode lead perforation, pericarditis, pericardial effusions and diaphragmatic or intercostal stimulation cannot occur. In contrast, the stability and reliability data for the catheter-delivered Select Secure leads revealed a number of complications.31

There were 237 ventricular leads at the RVOT and 79 at the RV apex. Seven acute lead dislodgements were reported for the total group, although the positions were not defined. A number of serious complications were reported, primarily related to injury caused by the catheter delivery system. A modified deployment technique was then instituted and these rates were reduced to acceptable levels.31

Conclusion

Chronic pacing from the right ventricular apex has been shown to result in left ventricular dysfunction. An alternative site, the RVOT septum, may provide more physiological activation of the ventricles and this site is now easily accessible, reliable and stable for lead placement. RVOT septal pacing is associated with shorter ventricular activation times, suggesting that it is the ‘sweet spot’ for chronic ventricular pacing. There exists a need for long-term pacing studies with RVOT septal pacing compared with RVA pacing looking at the incidence of pacing-related LV dysfunction, heart failure, hospitalisation and death.

References

  1. Furman S, Schwedel J, An intracardiac pacemaker for Stokes–Adams seizures, N Eng J Med, 1959;943–8.
  2. Wyman BT, Hunter WC, Prinzen FW, et al., Mapping propagation of mechanical activation in the paced heart with MRI tagging, Am J Physiol, 1999;276:H881–91.
  3. Prinzen FW, Augustijn CH, Arts T, et al., Redistribution of myocardial fiber strain and blood flow by asynchronous activation, Am J Physiol, 1990;259:H300–308.
  4. Prinzen FW, Hunter WC, Wyman BT, et al., Mapping of regional myocardial strain and work during ventricular pacing: experimental study using magnetic resonance imaging tagging, J Am Coll Cardiol, 1999;33:1735–42.
  5. Delhaas T, Arts T, et al., Regional fibre stress-fibre strain area as an estimate of regional blood flow and oxygen demand in the canine heart, J Physiol, 1994;477 (Pt. 3):481–96.
  6. Giudici MC, Thornburg GA, Buck DL, et al., Comparison of right ventricular outflow tract and apical lead permanent pacing on cardiac output, Am J Cardiol, 1997;79:209–12.
  7. Nahlawi M, Waligora M, Spies SM, et al., Left ventricular function during and after right ventricular pacing, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004;44:1883–8.
  8. Karpawich PP, Justice CD, et al., Developmental sequelae of fixed-rate ventricular pacing in the immature canine heart: an electrophysiological, haemodynamic and histopathologic evaluation, Am Heart J, 1990;119:1077–83.
  9. Tantengco MV, Thomas RL, Karpawich PP, Left ventricular dysfunction after long-term right ventricular apical pacing in the young, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2001;37:2093–2100.
  10. Thambo JB, Bordachar P, Garrigue S et al., Detrimental ventricular remodelling in patients with congenital complete heart block and chronic right ventricular apical pacing, Circulation, 2004;110:3766–72.
  11. Wilkoff BL, Cook JR, Epstein AE, et al., Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular back-up pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial, JAMA, 2002;288:3115–23.
  12. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS., Heart failure during cardiac pacing, Circulation, 2006;113:2082–8.
  13. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, et al., Adverse Effect of Ventricular Pacing on Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation among Patients with Normal Baseline QRS Duration in a Clinical Trial of Pacemaker Therapy for Sinus Node Dysfunction, Circulation, 2003;107:2932–7.
  14. Brady PA, Hammill SC, Ventricular-based pacing: one site fits all?, J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2003;14:1187–8.
  15. McGavigan AD, Roberts-Thomson KC, Hillock RJ, et al., Right ventricular outflow tract pacing: radiographic and electrocardiographic correlates of lead position, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2006;29:1063–8.
  16. Zanon F, Barraca E, et al., A feasible approach for direct Hisbundle pacing using a new steerable catheter to facilitate precise lead placement, J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2006;17:29–33.
  17. Deshmukh P, Casavant D, Romanyshyn M, et al., Permanent direct His-bundle pacing: a novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His-Purkinje activation, Circulation, 2000;101:869–77.
  18. Farre J, Anderson RH, Cabrera JA, et al., Fluoroscopic cardiac anatomy for catheter ablation of tachycardia, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2002;25:76–94.
  19. Giudici MC, Karpawich PP, Alternative site pacing: it’s time to define terms, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1999;22:551–3.
  20. Lieberman R, Grenz D, Mond HG, et al., Selective site pacing: defining and reaching the selected site, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2004;27:883–6.
  21. Cowell R, Morris-Thurgood J, Ilsley C, et al., Septal short atrioventricular delay pacing: additional haemodynamic improvements in heart failure, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1994;17:1980–83.
  22. Karpawich PP, Mital S, Comparative left ventricular function following atrial, septal and apical single chamber heart pacing in the young, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1997;20:1983–8.
  23. Schwaab B, Frohlig G, Alexander C, et al., Influence of right ventricular stimulation site on left ventricular function in atrial synchronous ventricular pacing, J Am Coll Cardiol, 1999;33: 317–23.
  24. Mera F, DeLurgio DB, Patterson RE, et al., A comparison of ventricular function during high right ventricular septal and apical pacing after His-bundle ablation for refractory atrial fibrillation, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1999;22:1234–9.
  25. Tse HF, Yu C, Wong KK, et al., Functional abnormalities in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing: the effect of sites of electrical stimulation, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2002;40:1451–8.
  26. Victor F, Mabo P, Mansour H, et al., A randomised comparison of permanent septal versus apical right ventricular pacing: short-term results, J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2006;17:238–42.
  27. Vlay SC, Right ventricular outflow tract pacing: practical and beneficial. A nine-year experience of 460 consecutive implants, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2006;29:1055–62.
  28. Victor F, Leclercq C, Mabo P, et al., Optimal right ventricular pacing site in chronically implanted patients: a prospective randomised cross-over comparison of apical and outflow tract pacing, J Am Coll Cardiol, 1999;33:311–16.
  29. Stambler BS, Ellenbogen K, Zhang X, et al., Right ventricular outflow versus apical pacing in pacemaker patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation, J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2003;14:1180–86.
  30. Mond HG, Hillock RJ, Stevenson IH, et al., The Right Ventricular Outflow Tract: The Road to Septal Pacing, Accepted Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2007;30.
  31. Gammage MD, et al., Multicentre clinical experience with a lumenless, catheter-delivered, bipolar, permanent pacemaker lead: implant safety and electrical performance, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2006;29:858–65.
  32. Lundeen T, Gibson K, Kristall R, Electrical comparison of right ventricular outflow tract and right ventricular apical lead placement, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1997;20:1210.
Previous Volume Article Next Volume Article