Left Superior Vena Cava Persistence in Patients Undergoing Pacemaker or Cardioverter-defibrillator Implantation: a 10-year Experience
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objective: The persistence of a left superior vena cava (LSVC) has been observed in 0.3% of the general population as established by autopsy. In the adult population, it is an important anatomic finding if a left superior approach to the heart is considered. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of a LSVC in patients undergoing pacemaker (PM) and cardioverter-defibrillator (CD) implantation.
Design: We observed the prevalence of LSVC during a 10-year period; each patient undergoing PM or transvenous CD implantation received a left cephalic/left subclavian venous approach to the heart. With this technique, LSVC persistence is easily diagnosed during lead placement.
Results: A total of 1,139 patients consecutively underwent PM implantation during 10 years: 4 patients had persistent LSCV (0.34%). Among 115 patients undergoing CD implantation, 2 patients with LSVC (1.7%) were observed. Overall LSVC persistence was found in 6 of 1,254 patients (0.47%). Two patients, one of whom had no right superior vena cava (RSVC), received a left-sided PM, whereas two other patients received right-sided devices. Both CD patients received a left-sided active-can device: the first patient with a right-sided lead tunneled to the left pectoral pocket, as a result of poor catheter handling through the LSVC and coronary sinus, and the second patient with a screw-in lead from LSVC. Long-term follow-up of these patients (average +/- SD, 41 +/- 26 months) revealed absence of lead dislodgment and appropriate device function regardless of lead implantation site.
Conclusions: Persistence of LSVC in adults undergoing PM/CD implantation is similar to that of the general population (0.47% in our study). The left-sided implant can be achieved by stylet shaping and by use of active fixation leads in most patients, with a reliable outcome at short term in addition to appropriate device performance at follow-up. Assessment of the RSVC is advisable when planning a right-sided implantation, since a minority of patients lacks this vessel.
Shahi S, Nematollahi S, Vasheghani-Farahani A Clin Case Rep. 2025; 13(1):e70031.
PMID: 39807222 PMC: 11725399. DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.70031.
Shakhshir A, Abdul-Hafez H, Takhman M, Qasrawi H, Kittaneh M, Saada S Radiol Case Rep. 2024; 20(1):442-448.
PMID: 39534752 PMC: 11555247. DOI: 10.1016/j.radcr.2024.10.051.
Tamura K, Hoshino J, Ezure M, Hasegawa Y, Yamada Y, Okada S JTCVS Tech. 2024; 27:119-121.
PMID: 39478920 PMC: 11518861. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2024.06.013.
Aithal S, Gupta A, Bansal S, Isser H, Gupta P Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e68136.
PMID: 39350800 PMC: 11440016. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.68136.
Challenges and pitfalls during CRT implantation in patients with persistent left superior vena cava.
Akdis D, Vogler J, Sieren M, Molitor N, Sasse T, Phan H J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2024; 67(7):1505-1516.
PMID: 38345706 PMC: 11522099. DOI: 10.1007/s10840-024-01761-7.