Literature DB >> 22285578

Sites of left and right ventricular lead implantation and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy observations from the REVERSE trial.

Christophe Thébault1, Erwan Donal, Catherine Meunier, Renaud Gervais, Bart Gerritse, Michael R Gold, William T Abraham, Cecilia Linde, J-Claude Daubert.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to ascertain the effects of the left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular lead tip position in response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
BACKGROUND: The REVERSE randomized trial examined the effects of CRT in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic heart failure (HF).
METHODS: We analysed data collected from the active group (CRT-ON) of REVERSE in whom the precise locations of the LV and RV ventricular lead tips were determined from postoperative chest roentgenograms as part of a prespecified sub-study. LV position was classified as lateral or non-lateral, and apical or non-apical. RV position was classified as apical or non-apical. Echocardiographic LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVi), QRS duration, and clinical outcomes at 12-24 months of follow-up were evaluated with respect to the lead tip position. The primary trial endpoint was the proportion of patients with a worsened HF clinical composite response, scored as improved, unchanged, or worsened.
RESULTS: Totally 346 patients included in this analysis were followed for a median of 12.6 months (interquartile range: 11.9-23.9 months). The proportion of worsened HF clinical composite response did not correlate with lead position, whereas a significantly greater decrease in the powered secondary endpoint of LVESVi was observed with the non-apical vs. the apical LV lead positions. CRT-paced QRS duration was significantly shorter than at baseline in patients with lateral vs. non-lateral LV position, as well non-apical vs. apical LV position. The incidence of composite endpoint of death and first hospitalization for HF was lower in the LV lateral than in the non-lateral (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19-0.99; P= 0.04), and in the LV non-apical than in the apical group (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11-0.63; P= 0.001). No significant differences were observed between RV apical and non-apical positions of the lead tip.
CONCLUSIONS: A more favourable outcome of CRT with regard to LV reverse remodelling and the composite of time to death or first HF hospitalization was observed when the LV lead tip was implanted in the lateral wall, away from the apex, while the position of the RV lead tip was indifferent. The long-term change in QRS duration was significantly associated with the position of the LV lead tip. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00271154.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22285578     DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr505

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J        ISSN: 0195-668X            Impact factor:   29.983


  28 in total

Review 1.  Targeting left ventricular lead placement to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes.

Authors:  Jeffrey Liu; Evan Adelstein; Samir Saba
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 2.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy: Dire need for targeted left ventricular lead placement and optimal device programming.

Authors:  Sokratis Pastromas; Antonis S Manolis
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2014-12-26

3.  ICD lead type and RV lead position in CRT-D recipients.

Authors:  Alexander P Benz; Mate Vamos; Julia W Erath; Peter Bogyi; Gabor Z Duray; Stefan H Hohnloser
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 4.  Phrenic nerve stimulation in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Ghassan Moubarak; Abdeslam Bouzeman; Jacky Ollitrault; Frederic Anselme; Serge Cazeau
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  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

6.  Localization of pacing and defibrillator leads using standard x-ray views is frequently inaccurate and is not reproducible.

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

7.  Determinants of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Authors:  John D Allison; Yitschak Biton; Theofanie Mela
Journal:  J Innov Card Rhythm Manag       Date:  2022-05-15

8.  Developments in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy.

Authors:  Geoffrey F Lewis; Michael R Gold
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2015-08

9.  Current Evidence and Recommendations for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy.

Authors:  Matthew J Dewhurst; Nicholas J Linker
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2014-05-30

Review 10.  Device therapies: new indications and future directions.

Authors:  Prabhat Kumar; Jennifer D Schwartz
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2015
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.