- Short communication
- Open Access
Temporary transvenous pacing guided by the combined use of ultrasound and intracavitary electrocardiography: a feasible and safe technique
© The Author(s) 2019
- Received: 11 September 2018
- Accepted: 5 March 2019
- Published: 4 April 2019
Temporary transvenous pacing is a crucial procedure in emergency and critical care medicine. While fluoroscopy guidance is considered the gold-standard to place the temporary pacing electrode catheter (EC), its use is usually limited by equipment availability and time. By contrast, ultrasound (US) guidance is a useful alternative, since it is widely available at the bedside, does not emit ionizing radiation and provides optimal times to active pacing with fewer complications. However, many times, in spite of visualizing the EC in the right ventricle using US, the pacing capture and sensing are not optimal, and thus, having an easily applicable method for best assessing this issue is desirable, especially if it could be combined with US without difficulties. With the purpose of illustrating the points made previously, the combined US-intracavitary electrocardiography technique is described in detail in this paper.
- Transthoracic echocardiography
- Cardiac pacing
Temporary transvenous pacing (TVP) is a lifesaving procedure which is mainly indicated in patients with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias as well as in patients with specific tachyarrhythmias (i.e., overdrive pacing) [1–4].
Temporary transvenous pacing consists in inserting a temporary pacing electrode catheter (EC) into the right ventricle and then applying an electric stimulus with the goal of restoring effective cardiac depolarization and heart contraction, resulting in the delivery of an adequate heart rate and cardiac output .
Several complications can result from this critical procedure such as failure to secure venous access, failure to place the lead correctly, sepsis, puncture of arteries, lungs or myocardium and life-threatening arrhythmias . Giving these facts, a safe method to monitor the EC insertion is desirable .
The placement of the EC can be achieved in several ways, including a blind technique as well as a couple of guided techniques, such as intracavitary electrocardiography (ECG) [6, 7], ultrasonographic-guided insertion (US) [8–10] and fluoroscopy [9, 10]. Since the blind technique is neither safe nor effective most of the times, and considering that fluoroscopy is not usually available at the bedside or patients are commonly unstable to be transferred to the radiology department, ECG and/or real-time ultrasonographic (US) guidance are generally chosen to assist in the procedure at the patient’s bedside. The combination of guided techniques for the placement of the EC is a valid and useful strategy, with the intention of making the procedure easy, safe, and effective. This is the case of the combination of US guidance with intracavitary ECG, which is easy to perform, may lead to a reduction in the time to active pacing and may avoid complications.
Regarding the selection of the route of insertion, this may be guided by several factors, such as the presence of hypovolemia, anticoagulation status, or adequate anatomy. As a general rule, the right-sided veins are preferred over the left because permanent systems are usually inserted on the left side and because it is often technically easier from the right side . In general, the right internal jugular vein provides the most direct route to the right ventricle and it is associated with lowest rate of loss of ventricular capture and thus is the recommended route for using in practice . Right subclavian/axillary route follows the right IJV and is preferred in patients with hypovolemia, given the ability of these vessels to remain patent even in patients with volume depletion. Femoral access can be performed with ease; however, it can be more difficult to advance the electrodes to the right ventricle, limits patient mobility, has a higher risk of venous thromboembolism, and offers the least stable wire position . Of note, securing a venous access is not a minor issue, with a high failure rate reported among studies (average 15%, range 6–40%) . Ultrasound-guided insertion of the introducer sheath, which is in fact a central venous canulation, has proven to improve canulation success and reduce complications related to the procedure . Thus, all introducer sheaths should be placed under ultrasound guidance, unless there is no time to prepare the ultrasound equipment, such as in extreme situations (e.g., cardiopulmonary resuscitation), or eventually when ultrasound cannot be used for technical reasons (e.g., subcutaneous emphysema).
The combined technique (ultrasound and intracavitary ECG) will be described after discussing some aspects of both techniques when used in isolation.
Aguilera et al.  reported the transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)-guided insertion of the EC in nine patients in the ED. The EC was successfully observed by TTE in eight patients, allowing also to detect mispositioning of the EC and its adequate repositioning in three patients. Right IJV was used in six patients, while right subclavian vein was used in three. US-guided insertion of the introducer was not reported. The total time to pacemaker insertion was 4–13 min in this study.
The study carried out by Pinneri et al.  compared the placement of EC using TTE guidance (n = 53, with EC inserted through the internal jugular vein) versus fluoroscopy (n = 53, with EC inserted through the femoral vein). Although some of the differences between the two groups may be accounted for by the site of insertion and the guidance method, in the presence of an adequate acoustic window, the TTE guidance allows for a reliable temporary pacing with short procedural times, showing lower costs, avoiding the use of ionizing radiation and adding the advantage to perform the procedure at the bedside.
More recently, Ferri et al.  compared the insertion of the EC via the echo-guided approach (jugular vein) in 113 patients vs fluoroscopy (n = 90) via the femoral vein. In this study, the echo-guided approach reduced the median time to active pacing (22 vs 43 min), showed less complications (lower infections rates and puncture-related hematomas) and reduced the time to implantation of the definitive pacemaker.
In cases of inadequate cardiac windows, the use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance has been anecdotally described ; however, this technique is invasive and it is not yet widely available in the emergency and critical care settings.
While this technique is well-described in the literature, it is scarcely utilized in many EDs and ICUs. Although time to active pacing using this technique is not described in literature according to author´s knowledge, in practice, this is a reliable method to safely insert the EC in the RV and ensure a correct capture and sensing of the device [6, 7]. Although expected ECG patterns are observed based on the EC position, it is sometimes difficult to know where the EC is actually placed. For example, when it is placed in the coronary sinus, inferior vena cava or in RV perforations. Also, recording the intracavitary ECG as the EC is advanced is time-consuming in practice and not the best option when pacing urges, so having in practice a direct visualization of the EC passing through the tricuspid valve into the RV may save the time spent in recording these lead positions.
After a subepicardial injury is demonstrated on intracavitary ECG and the lead is connected to the generator which is now turned on, ventricular capture is normally achieved at low stimulation thresholds. Surface ECG will ordinarily show the pacemaker spikes accompanied by broad QRS complexes of left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology. Sensing will also be optimal at low thresholds. A “benign” captured right bundle branch pattern (RBBB), although rare, can also be recorded in some patients . While RBBB is observed in left-sided catheters (perforations) as well as in coronary sinus (CS) insertion, TTE confirmation of the EC positioned into the RV is reassuring [15, 16].
Once the capture and sensing of the device is adequate as demonstrated on the surface ECG, lung ultrasound is performed to rule in or out a pneumothorax (the presence or absence of lung sliding, along other signs of pneumothorax).
The combined use of US and intracavitary ECG to insert the EC appears as a potentially useful method for a secure lead placement in emergency settings. There are several benefits associated with this combined technique that need to be recognized. In the first place, the insertion of the introducer sheath under US guidance, which is associated with an improvement in first pass success and fewer complications in comparison with the landmark technique. Second, TTE may allow practitioners to quickly pass the EC to the RV, under direct visualization, thus allowing for the detection of complications or misplacements and the reposition of the EC in real time. Third, for intracavitary ECG, a rapid assessment of RV subepicardial injury pattern is achieved when the EC is in the RV, avoiding failed pacing captures and sensing. Finally, lung US is useful to rule in or out a pneumothorax in seconds, at the patient’s bedside.
Limitations of ultrasound and intracavitary ECG are the same as the ones established for each method when used in isolation.
Adding ECG-guidance to TTE in this way is easy, does not seem to add unusual complexity or extra time spent on the procedure and may actually improve the times to active pacing, avoiding complications.
This short communication is based on author’s years of experience performing this procedure in this way, achieving excellent results. However, prospective studies are needed to validate this simultaneous technique in large populations.
While ultrasound is a feasible guidance to insert and monitor the EC placement at the patient’s bedside, the addition of intracavitary ECG allows for a better determination of RV wall lead-contacting, enhancing a correct pacemaker capture and sensing, without adding unusual complexity or spending extra time in the procedure. Emergency and critical care physicians must be aware of the benefits of using this combined method when transvenous pacing is needed.
The author wrote the manuscript, performed the ultrasound and ECG examinations, edited the multimedia material. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors would like to thank Mrs. Julieta Vigna for the language guidance.
This work has not been presented at any conferences.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Availability of data and materials
Consent for publication
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This article received no funding or grants.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Competency-based training in intensive care medicine in Europe (CoBaTrICE programme): performs cardiac pacing (transvenous or transthoracic). http://www.cobatrice.org/Data/ModuleGestionDeContenu/PagesGenerees/en/03-Syllabus/0E-procedures/0E15-pacing//113.asp. Accessed 02 Mar 2015
- Ahn J, Kharasch M, Aronwald R, Menon S, Du H, Calabrese N, Gitelis M, Aitchson P, Wang E (2013) Assessing the accreditation council for graduate medical education requirement for temporary cardiac pacing procedural competency through simulation. Simul Healthc 8(2):78–83View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- López Ayerbe J, Villuendas Sabaté R, García García C et al (2004) Temporary pacemakers: current use and complications. Rev Esp Cardiol 57(11):1045–1052View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Blanco P, Nomura J (2014) An atypical misplacement of a temporary pacing catheter diagnosed and resolved by ultrasound. Am J Emerg Med 32(10):1296.e1–1296.e3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McCann P (2007) A review of temporary cardiac pacing wires. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol 7(1):40–49Google Scholar
- Evans GL, Glasser SP (1971) Intracavitary electrocardiography as a guide to pacemaker positioning. JAMA 216(3):483–485View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Harrigan RA, Chan TC, Moonblatt S, Vilke GM, Ufberg JW (2007) Temporary transvenous pacemaker placement in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 32(1):105–111View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Aguilera PA, Durham BA, Riley DA (2000) Emergency transvenous cardiac pacing placement using ultrasound guidance. Ann Emerg Med 36(3):224–227View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pinneri F, Frea S, Najd K, Panella S, Franco E, Conti V, Corgnati G (2013) Echocardiography-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided temporary pacing in the emergency setting: an observational study. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 14(3):242–246View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ferri LA, Farina A, Lenatti L, Ruffa F, Tiberti G, Piatti L, Savonitto S (2016) Emergent transvenous cardiac pacing using ultrasound guidance: a prospective study versus the standard fluoroscopy-guided procedure. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 5(2):125–129View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sullivan BL, Bartels K, Hamilton N (2016) Insertion and management of temporary pacemakers. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 20(1):52–62View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Councils on Intraoperative Echocardiography and Vascular Ultrasound of the American Society of Echocardiography, Troianos CA, Hartman GS, Glas KE, Skubas NJ, Eberhardt RT, Walker JD, Reeves ST (2011) Guidelines for performing ultrasound guided vascular cannulation: recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 24(12):1291–1318View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Krishnan U, Karthikeyan VJ, Trinh J, Theologou T, Velavan P (2014) First report of the use of transesophageal echocardiography to position a temporary pacing wire. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 28(1):110–111View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hemminger EJ, Criley JM (2006) Right ventricular enlargement mimicking electrocardiographic left ventricular pacing. J Electrocardiol 39(2):180–182View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yang YN, Yin WH, Young MS (2003) Safe right bundle branch block pattern during permanent right ventricular pacing. J Electrocardiol 36(1):67–71View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Velibey Y, Yaylak B, Guvenc TS, Cinier G, Kalenderoglu K, Guzelburc O, Yildirimturk O (2018) Inadvertent left ventricle endocardial or uncomplicated right ventricular pacing: how to differentiate in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 54:e91–e95View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Osman F, Ratib K, Krishnamoorthy S, Nadir A, Creamer J, Morley-Davies A (2008) Temporary pacing wire in the coronary sinus: a novel treatment of acute heart failure? Europace 10(7):877–879View ArticleGoogle Scholar