Literature DB >> 20298819

Impact of segmental left ventricle lead position on cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes.

Faisal M Merchant1, E Kevin Heist, David McCarty, Prabhat Kumar, Saumya Das, Dan Blendea, Patrick T Ellinor, Theofanie Mela, Michael H Picard, Jeremy N Ruskin, Jagmeet P Singh.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal pacing site for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is along the left ventricle (LV) lateral or posterolateral wall. However, little is known about the impact of segmental pacing site on outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of segmental LV lead position on CRT outcomes.
METHODS: Patients (n = 115) undergoing CRT were followed prospectively. Segmental LV lead position along the longitudinal axis (apical, midventricle, or basal) was determined retrospectively by examining coronary sinus (CS) venograms and chest X-rays. The primary outcome was a combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization, cardiac transplantation, or all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and degree of LV reverse remodeling.
RESULTS: Patients were divided into two groups based on LV lead position: apical (n = 25) and basal/midventricle (n = 90). The apical group was older (72.9 +/- 8.9 vs. 66.5 +/- 13.3 years; P = .010) and more likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (77% vs. 52%, P <.001). During a mean follow-up of 15.1 +/- 9.0 months, event-free survival was significantly lower in the apical group: 52% vs. 79%, hazard ratio [HR] 2.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-5.5, P = .006). The adverse impact of apical lead placement remained significant after adjusting for clinical covariates: HR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1-4.8, P = .03). The apical group also experienced less improvement in NYHA functional class and less LV reverse remodeling.
CONCLUSIONS: Apical LV lead placement is associated with worse CRT outcomes. Preferential positioning of LV leads in the basal/midventricle segments may improve outcomes. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20298819     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.01.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  19 in total

Review 1.  Lead positioning strategies to enhance response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Dan Blendea; Jagmeet P Singh
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.214

Review 2.  How to improve outcomes with cardiac resynchronisation therapy: importance of lead positioning.

Authors:  Peter J Cowburn; Christophe Leclercq
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.214

3.  Multidisciplinary care of patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Robert K Altman; Kimberly A Parks; Christopher L Schlett; Mary Orencole; Mi-Young Park; Quynh A Truong; Peerawut Deeprasertkul; Stephanie A Moore; Conor D Barrett; Gregory D Lewis; Saumya Das; Gaurav A Upadhyay; E Kevin Heist; Michael H Picard; Jagmeet P Singh
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 29.983

4.  [Technical innovations and limitation in cardiac electrotherapy].

Authors:  H-H Minden
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2011-03

5.  Improved implant and postoperative lead performance in CRT-D patients implanted with a quadripolar left ventricular lead. A 6-month follow-up analysis from a multicenter prospective comparative study.

Authors:  Giovanni B Forleo; Luigi Di Biase; Germana Panattoni; Massimo Mantica; Quintino Parisi; Annamaria Martino; Augusto Pappalardo; Domenico Sergi; Manfredi Tesauro; Lida P Papavasileiou; Luca Santini; Leonardo Calò; Claudio Tondo; Andrea Natale; Francesco Romeo
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-12-13       Impact factor: 1.900

6.  Assessment of coronary flow reserve predicts long-term outcome of responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Kunio Yufu; Hidekazu Kondo; Tetsuji Shinohara; Yumi Ishii; Seiichiro Yoshimura; Ichitaro Abe; Shotaro Saito; Akira Fukui; Norihiro Okada; Hidefumi Akioka; Yasushi Teshima; Mikiko Nakagawa; Naohiko Takahashi
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  Left ventricular or biventricular pacing? Single or multielectrode leads? An implanter's viewpoint.

Authors:  Kamal K Sethi; Kabir Sethi; Surendra K Chutani
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 8.  Optimizing CRT - Do We Need More Leads and Delivery Methods.

Authors:  Pieter Martens; Frederik Hendrik Verbrugge; Wilfried Mullens
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2015-04-30

9.  Right ventricular lead location, right-left ventricular lead interaction, and long-term outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.

Authors:  Usama A Daimee; Helmut U Klein; Michael C Giudici; Wojciech Zareba; Scott McNitt; Bronislava Polonsky; Arthur J Moss; Valentina Kutyifa
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 1.900

10.  Single-center experience of a quadripolar pacing lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Antonello Vado; Endrj Menardi; Guido Rossetti; Gianpaolo Ballari; Mauro Feola; Marco Bobbio
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 1.900

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.