BACKGROUND: Benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is likely influenced by the location of the left ventricular (LV) lead. PURPOSE: To evaluate the association of LV lead position with outcome after CRT. METHODS: Two-hundred and fifty patients with LV dysfunction, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III (68%) or IV (32%) symptoms, and QRS durations > or =120 ms were followed for a median of 30 months post-CRT. LV lead position was categorized as anterior (n = 20, 8%), lateral (n = 128, 51%), or posterior (n = 102; 41%) using postero-anterior and lateral postoperative chest radiographs. RESULTS: Median age was 69 years and most (68%) had ischemic LV dysfunction. Clinical response, defined by a > or =1 NYHA class reduction, was lower in patients with an anterior (30%) versus lateral (76%) or posterior (73%) lead position (p = 0.001). An anterior versus nonanterior position was independently associated with a two to three-fold higher risk for nonresponse to CRT, cardiovascular death, death from worsening heart failure or cardiac transplantation, and death from any cause. Repositioning of the LV lead from an anterior to a nonanterior position in seven patients who had not clinically responded to CRT after > or =6 months resulted in clinical improvement in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: An anterior versus nonanterior LV lead position is independently associated with an increased likelihood of nonresponse to CRT and a higher risk of serious outcomes. Repositioning of an anteriorly placed LV lead to a nonanterior position should be considered in CRT nonresponders.
BACKGROUND: Benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is likely influenced by the location of the left ventricular (LV) lead. PURPOSE: To evaluate the association of LV lead position with outcome after CRT. METHODS: Two-hundred and fifty patients with LV dysfunction, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III (68%) or IV (32%) symptoms, and QRS durations > or =120 ms were followed for a median of 30 months post-CRT. LV lead position was categorized as anterior (n = 20, 8%), lateral (n = 128, 51%), or posterior (n = 102; 41%) using postero-anterior and lateral postoperative chest radiographs. RESULTS: Median age was 69 years and most (68%) had ischemic LV dysfunction. Clinical response, defined by a > or =1 NYHA class reduction, was lower in patients with an anterior (30%) versus lateral (76%) or posterior (73%) lead position (p = 0.001). An anterior versus nonanterior position was independently associated with a two to three-fold higher risk for nonresponse to CRT, cardiovascular death, death from worsening heart failure or cardiac transplantation, and death from any cause. Repositioning of the LV lead from an anterior to a nonanterior position in seven patients who had not clinically responded to CRT after > or =6 months resulted in clinical improvement in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: An anterior versus nonanterior LV lead position is independently associated with an increased likelihood of nonresponse to CRT and a higher risk of serious outcomes. Repositioning of an anteriorly placed LV lead to a nonanterior position should be considered in CRT nonresponders.
Authors: William T Abraham; Westby G Fisher; Andrew L Smith; David B Delurgio; Angel R Leon; Evan Loh; Dusan Z Kocovic; Milton Packer; Alfredo L Clavell; David L Hayes; Myrvin Ellestad; Robin J Trupp; Jackie Underwood; Faith Pickering; Cindy Truex; Peggy McAtee; John Messenger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James A White; Raymond Yee; Xiaping Yuan; Andrew Krahn; Allan Skanes; Michele Parker; George Klein; Maria Drangova Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael Becker; Andreas Franke; Ole A Breithardt; Christina Ocklenburg; Theresa Kaminski; Rafael Kramann; Christian Knackstedt; Christoph Stellbrink; Peter Hanrath; Patrick Schauerte; Rainer Hoffmann Journal: Heart Date: 2007-02-19 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Daniel Arzola-Castaner; Cynthia Taub; E Kevin Heist; Dali Fan; Kyle Haelewyn; Theofanie Mela; Michael H Picard; Jeremy N Ruskin; Jagmeet P Singh Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2006-06
Authors: I Lozano; M Bocchiardo; M Achtelik; F Gaita; H J Trappe; E Daoud; J Hummel; C Duby; P Yong Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Antonio Rossillo; Atul Verma; Eduardo B Saad; Andrea Corrado; Gianni Gasparini; Nassir F Marrouche; Ali Reza Golshayan; Richard McCurdy; Mandeep Bhargava; Yaariv Khaykin; J David Burkhardt; David O Martin; Bruce L Wilkoff; Walid I Saliba; Robert A Schweikert; Antonio Raviele; Andrea Natale Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2004-10
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A L A J Dekker; B Phelps; B Dijkman; T van der Nagel; F H van der Veen; G G Geskes; J G Maessen Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Michael Becker; Rafael Kramann; Andreas Franke; Ole-A Breithardt; Nicole Heussen; Christian Knackstedt; Christoph Stellbrink; Patrick Schauerte; Malte Kelm; Rainer Hoffmann Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-04-10 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: John Rickard; Omeed Zardkoohi; Zoran Popovic; David Verhaert; Dan Sraow; Bryan Baranowski; David O Martin; Richard A Grimm; Mina K Chung; Patrick Tchou; Bruce A Lindsay; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Lu Chen; Jay E Tiongson; Sebastian Obrzut; Martin B McDaniel; Hsin-Yi Chang; Jigar Patel; Paul J Friedman; Gregory K Feld; Ulrika M Birgersdotter-Green Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Norman C Wang; Aliza Hussain; Evan C Adelstein; Andrew D Althouse; Michael S Sharbaugh; Sandeep K Jain; Alaa A Shalaby; Andrew H Voigt; Samir Saba Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 1.468