PURPOSE: Post-implant lateral and postero-anterior chest X-rays (CXR) are often utilized to determine the final LV lead tip position after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study sought to compare post-implant standard CXRs with intra-procedural rotational coronary venous angiography (RCVA) to localize the final LV lead position. METHODS: Sixty-four patients undergoing CRT (69.2 ± 11.4 years; males 68.7%; ischemic cardiomyopathy 59.4%; NYHA class 2.9 ± 0.5 and LV ejection fraction 24% ± 9%) were included in the study. RCVA was done by recording a rapid 4-second isocentric cine-loop from RAO 55° to LAO 55° (120 frames). Conventional CXR method (CC) and a composite CXR strategy (CM) based on two-view CXR were separately compared with RCVA. RESULTS: The most common pacing site was lateral (64.1%), followed by postero-lateral (23.4%) and antero-lateral (10.9%). In 73.4% (47) cases, the LV lead position was misclassified by CC as compared to RCVA. Among the 47 (73.4%) cases misclassified by CC approach, 35 had lateral LV lead position misclassified by CC as postero-lateral (77%), posterior (20%) and antero-lateral (3%). On the other hand, CM strategy classified the LV lead position correctly in 46 (71.9%) of the patients (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The composite CXR strategy is a useful method for post-procedure LV lead localization. Due to its simplicity, it can be widely applied in post-implant evaluation of LV lead position in CRT patients.
PURPOSE: Post-implant lateral and postero-anterior chest X-rays (CXR) are often utilized to determine the final LV lead tip position after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study sought to compare post-implant standard CXRs with intra-procedural rotational coronary venous angiography (RCVA) to localize the final LV lead position. METHODS: Sixty-four patients undergoing CRT (69.2 ± 11.4 years; males 68.7%; ischemic cardiomyopathy 59.4%; NYHA class 2.9 ± 0.5 and LV ejection fraction 24% ± 9%) were included in the study. RCVA was done by recording a rapid 4-second isocentric cine-loop from RAO 55° to LAO 55° (120 frames). Conventional CXR method (CC) and a composite CXR strategy (CM) based on two-view CXR were separately compared with RCVA. RESULTS: The most common pacing site was lateral (64.1%), followed by postero-lateral (23.4%) and antero-lateral (10.9%). In 73.4% (47) cases, the LV lead position was misclassified by CC as compared to RCVA. Among the 47 (73.4%) cases misclassified by CC approach, 35 had lateral LV lead position misclassified by CC as postero-lateral (77%), posterior (20%) and antero-lateral (3%). On the other hand, CM strategy classified the LV lead position correctly in 46 (71.9%) of the patients (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The composite CXR strategy is a useful method for post-procedure LV lead localization. Due to its simplicity, it can be widely applied in post-implant evaluation of LV lead position in CRT patients.
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: Michael R Bristow; Leslie A Saxon; John Boehmer; Steven Krueger; David A Kass; Teresa De Marco; Peter Carson; Lorenzo DiCarlo; David DeMets; Bill G White; Dale W DeVries; Arthur M Feldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2006-06-16 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Aleksandr Rovner; Lisa de Las Fuentes; Mitchell N Faddis; Marye J Gleva; Victor G Dávila-Román; Alan D Waggoner Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Dan Blendea; Moussa Mansour; Ravi V Shah; Jeffrey Chung; Veena Nandigam; E Kevin Heist; Theofanie Mela; Vivek Y Reddy; Robert Manzke; Craig A McPherson; Jeremy N Ruskin; Jagmeet P Singh Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Christian Knackstedt; Georg Mühlenbruch; Karl Mischke; Philipp Bruners; Thomas Schimpf; Dirk Frechen; Georg Schummers; Andreas H Mahnken; Rolf W Günther; Malte Kelm; Patrick Schauerte Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 2.740
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: Michael Becker; Rainer Hoffmann; Fabian Schmitz; Anne Hundemer; Harald Kühl; Patrick Schauerte; Malte Kelm; Andreas Franke Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-10-24 Impact factor: 2.778
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: 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: John Rickard; Christopher Ingelmo; Dan Sraow; Bruce L Wilkoff; Richard A Grimm; Paul Schoenhagen; Patrick J Tchou; Milind Y Desai Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Larry R Jackson; Jonathan P Piccini; James P Daubert; Lynne M Hurwitz Koweek; Brett D Atwater Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Mati Friehling; Ji Chen; Samir Saba; Raveen Bazaz; David Schwartzman; Evan C Adelstein; Ernest Garcia; William Follansbee; Prem Soman Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 7.792