Retrosternal lead placement: an attractive alternative to subcutaneous tunneling

  • Nicholas Stanley ClarkeEmail author
  • Raghav Murthy
  • Michael Erik Jessen
Case report


Complex lead placement is on the rise. When ipsilateral lead placement is unavailable, a retrosternal approach offers minimal cosmetic defects while minimizing lead injury. A retrosternal technique has yet to be described in the literature. Here, we describe our technique, tricks, and pitfalls to performing such an operation in three patients.


Retrosternal Complex lead placement Chitwood clamp 


Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Dickstein K, Vardas PE, Auricchio A, et al. Focused Update of ESC Guidelines on device therapy in heart failure: an update of the 2008 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure and the 2007 ESC guidelines for cardiac and resynchronization therapy. Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association and the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2677–87.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Voigt A, Shalaby A, Saba S. Continued rise in rates of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections in the United States: temporal trends and causative insights. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010;33:414–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sadarmin PP, Chelliah RK, Timperley J. Contralateral transvenous left ventricular lead placement of implantable devices with pre-sternal tunnelling in chronically obstructed subclavian veins. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2015;15:113–117.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jaroszewski DE, Altemose GT, Scott LR, et al. Nontraditional surgical approaches for implantation of pacemaker and cardioverter defibrillator systems in patients with limited venous access. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:112–116.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poole JE, Gleva MJ, Mela T,et al. Complication rates associated with pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator replacements and upgrade procedures. Circulation. 2010;122:1553–61.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhagwandien RE, Kik C, Yap SC, Szili-TorokT. Substernal ICD lead implantation in a patient not suitable for subcutaneous ICD implantation without venous access due to superior vena cava syndrome. HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2017;3:97–99.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Molina JE. Surgical options for endocardial lead placement when upper veins are obstructed or nonusable. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2004;11:149–154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Stanley Clarke
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Raghav Murthy
    • 3
  • Michael Erik Jessen
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Cardiothoracic SurgeryUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.UT Southwestern Medical SchoolDallasUSA
  3. 3.Division of Pediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery, Rady Children’s HospitalUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations