AIMS: We sought to determine the clinical and survival outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) associated with left ventricular (LV) lead location. The lateral left ventricle has been considered the optimal LV lead location for CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Left ventricular lead cinegrams taken in 30° right and left anterior oblique views were evaluated in 457 recipients of CRT with a pacemaker or a defibrillator from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2008 in this retrospective study. Left ventricular lead placement was prioritized at implantation into posterolateral (PL), anterolateral (AL), middle cardiac, and anterointerventricular coronary veins. Using echocardiographic LV 16-segment analysis, we grouped the leads as anterior, AL, PL, and posterior locations. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and echocardiography were assessed before and after CRT. Clinical and survival outcomes after CRT were compared among the four LV lead locations. Patient baseline demographic characteristics were similar among these four groups. Improvement in NYHA class was significantly greater in the AL (P= 0.04) and PL (P= 0.03) locations than in the anterior location. There was a tendency for greater improvement in LV ejection fraction among the AL (P= 0.11) and PL (P= 0.08) locations than the anterior location. Kaplan-Meier survival estimate at 4 years varied for location: AL, 72%; anterior, 48%; PL, 62%; and posterior, 72% (P= 0.003). CONCLUSION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients are profiting from all lead positions. However, LV lead placed in the AL and PL positions is more preferential for achieving optimal CRT benefit than leads placed in the anterior position.
AIMS: We sought to determine the clinical and survival outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) associated with left ventricular (LV) lead location. The lateral left ventricle has been considered the optimal LV lead location for CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Left ventricular lead cinegrams taken in 30° right and left anterior oblique views were evaluated in 457 recipients of CRT with a pacemaker or a defibrillator from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2008 in this retrospective study. Left ventricular lead placement was prioritized at implantation into posterolateral (PL), anterolateral (AL), middle cardiac, and anterointerventricular coronary veins. Using echocardiographic LV 16-segment analysis, we grouped the leads as anterior, AL, PL, and posterior locations. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and echocardiography were assessed before and after CRT. Clinical and survival outcomes after CRT were compared among the four LV lead locations. Patient baseline demographic characteristics were similar among these four groups. Improvement in NYHA class was significantly greater in the AL (P= 0.04) and PL (P= 0.03) locations than in the anterior location. There was a tendency for greater improvement in LV ejection fraction among the AL (P= 0.11) and PL (P= 0.08) locations than the anterior location. Kaplan-Meier survival estimate at 4 years varied for location: AL, 72%; anterior, 48%; PL, 62%; and posterior, 72% (P= 0.003). CONCLUSION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients are profiting from all lead positions. However, LV lead placed in the AL and PL positions is more preferential for achieving optimal CRT benefit than leads placed in the anterior position.
Authors: Haitham A Badran; John Z Kamel; Tarek R Mohamed; Mohamed A Abdelhamid Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Björn Wieslander; Katherine C Wu; Zak Loring; Linus G Andersson; Terry F Frank; Gary Gerstenblith; Gordon F Tomaselli; Robert G Weiss; Galen S Wagner; Martin Ugander; David G Strauss Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Elisa Ebrille; Christopher V DeSimone; Vaibhav R Vaidya; Anwar A Chahal; Vuyisile T Nkomo; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Date: 2016-03-04