Preventing phrenic nerve stimulation by a patch insulation in an intact swine heart model.

• Main Authors: Jin-Long Huang, Yenn-Jiang Lin, Yi-Wen Hung, Yu-Cheng Hsieh, Chien-Ming Cheng, Kuo-Yang Wang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4102517?pdf=render

Phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) could be prevented by a silastic patch over the epicardial lead. We studied the effects in preventing PNS by placing a silastic patch directly over an epicardial lead or placing a graft around the phrenic nerve (PN).Fourteen Lanyu swine were enrolled. A bipolar lead was placed epicardially on the left ventricle (LV) inferior to the PN. An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead was placed into the right ventricle (RV). The maximal influential distance (MID) was measured under 3 pacing configurations to express the influential electrical field on the PN. The threshold of the LV and PN were evaluated epicardially. Then, PTFE patches of different sizes (10×10 mm, 20×20 mm and 30×30 mm) were placed between the LV lead and PN to study the rise in PN threshold in 7 swine. On the other hand, the PN were surrounded by a PTFE graft of different lengths (10 mm, 20 mm, and 30 mm) in the remaining 7 swine. LV-bipolar pacing showed the shortest MID when compared to the other 2 unipolar pacing configurations at pacing voltage of 10 V. The patch was most effective in preventing PNS during LV-bipolar pacing. PNS was prevented under all circumstances with a larger PTFE patch (30×30 mm) or long graft (30 mm).PNS was avoided by placing a PTFE patch over the LV lead or a graft around the PN despite pacing configurations. Hence if PNS persisted during CRT implantation, a PTFE patch on the LV lead or a graft around the PN could be considered.