Classical fluoroscopy criteria poorly predict right ventricular lead septal positioning by comparison with echocardiography
- 30 Downloads
Fluoroscopic criteria have been described for the documentation of septal right ventricular (RV) lead positioning, but their accuracy remains questioned.
Methods and results
Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker or defibrillator implantation were prospectively included. RV lead was positioned using postero-anterior and left anterior oblique 40° incidences, and right anterior oblique 30° to rule out coronary sinus positioning when suspected. RV lead positioning using fluoroscopy was compared to true RV lead positioning as assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Precise anatomical localizations were determined with both modalities; then, RV lead positioning was ultimately dichotomized into two simple clinically relevant categories: RV septal or RV free wall. Accuracy of fluoroscopy for RV lead positioning was then assessed by comparison with TTE. We included 100 patients. On TTE, 66/100 had a septal RV lead and 34/100 had a free wall RV lead. Fluoroscopy had moderate agreement with TTE for precise anatomical localization of RV lead (k = 0.53), and poor agreement for septal/free wall localization (k = 0.36). For predicting septal RV lead positioning, classical fluoroscopy criteria had a high sensitivity (95.5%; 63/66 patients having a septal RV lead on TTE were correctly identified by fluoroscopy) but a very low specificity (35.3%; only 12/34 patients having a free wall RV lead on TTE were correctly identified by fluoroscopy).
Classical fluoroscopy criteria have a poor accuracy for identifying RV free wall leads, which are most of the time misclassified as septal. This raises important concerns about the efficacy and safety of RV lead positioning using classical fluoroscopy criteria.
KeywordsPacemaker Implantable cardiac defibrillator Fluoroscopy
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Yes (institutional ethics committee).
- 1.Cano O, Andres A, Alonso P, Osca J, Sancho-Tello MJ, Olague J, et al. Incidence and predictors of clinically relevant cardiac perforation associated with systematic implantation of active-fixation pacing and defibrillation leads: a single-centre experience with over 3800 implanted leads. Europace. 2017;19:96–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Squara F, Tomi J, Scarlatti D, Theodore G, Moceri P, Ferrari E. Self-taught axillary vein access without venography for pacemaker implantation: prospective randomized comparison with the cephalic vein access. Europace 2017;1;19(12):2001–2006Google Scholar
- 15.Occhetta E, Bortnik M, Magnani A, Francalacci G, Piccinino C, Plebani L, et al. Prevention of ventricular desynchronization by permanent para-Hisian pacing after atrioventricular node ablation in chronic atrial fibrillation: a crossover, blinded, randomized study versus apical right ventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1938–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Osmancik P, Stros P, Herman D, Curila K, Petr R. The insufficiency of left anterior oblique and the usefulness of right anterior oblique projection for correct localization of a computed tomography-verified right ventricular lead into the midseptum. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013;6:719–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar