James H P Gamble1, Neil Herring2, Matthew Ginks2, Kim Rajappan2, Yaver Bashir2, Timothy R Betts2. 1. Oxford Heart Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: drjgamble1@jhpg.net. 2. Oxford Heart Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the contemporary and historical success rates of transvenous left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), their change over time, and the reasons for failure. BACKGROUND: In selected patients, CRT improves morbidity and mortality, but the placement of the LV lead can be technically challenging. METHODS: A literature search was used to identify all studies reporting success rates of LV lead placement for CRT via the coronary sinus (CS) route. A total of 164 studies were identified, and a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: The studies included 29,503 patients: 74% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72% to 76%) were male; their mean age was 66 years (95% CI: 65 to 67); their mean New York Heart Association functional class was 2.8 (95% CI: 2.7 to 2.9); the mean LV ejection fraction was 26% (95% CI: 25% to 28%); and the mean QRS duration was 155 ms (95% CI: 150 to 160). The overall rate of failure of implantation of an LV lead was 3.6% (95% CI: 3.1 to 4.3). The rate of failure in studies commencing before 2005 was 5.4% (95% CI: 4.4% to 6.5%), and from 2005 onward it was 2.4% (95% CI: 1.9% to 3.1%; p < 0.001). Causes of failure (reported for 39% of failures) also changed over time. Failure to cannulate and navigate the CS decreased from 53% to 30% (p = 0.01), and the absence of any suitable, acceptable vein increased from 39% to 64% (p = 0.007). The proportion of leads in a lateral or posterolateral final position (reported for 26% of leads) increased from 66% to 82% (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The reported rate of failure to place an LV lead via the CS has decreased steadily over time. A greater proportion of failures in recent studies are due to coronary venous anatomy that is unsuitable for this technique.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the contemporary and historical success rates of transvenous left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), their change over time, and the reasons for failure. BACKGROUND: In selected patients, CRT improves morbidity and mortality, but the placement of the LV lead can be technically challenging. METHODS: A literature search was used to identify all studies reporting success rates of LV lead placement for CRT via the coronary sinus (CS) route. A total of 164 studies were identified, and a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: The studies included 29,503 patients: 74% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72% to 76%) were male; their mean age was 66 years (95% CI: 65 to 67); their mean New York Heart Association functional class was 2.8 (95% CI: 2.7 to 2.9); the mean LV ejection fraction was 26% (95% CI: 25% to 28%); and the mean QRS duration was 155 ms (95% CI: 150 to 160). The overall rate of failure of implantation of an LV lead was 3.6% (95% CI: 3.1 to 4.3). The rate of failure in studies commencing before 2005 was 5.4% (95% CI: 4.4% to 6.5%), and from 2005 onward it was 2.4% (95% CI: 1.9% to 3.1%; p < 0.001). Causes of failure (reported for 39% of failures) also changed over time. Failure to cannulate and navigate the CS decreased from 53% to 30% (p = 0.01), and the absence of any suitable, acceptable vein increased from 39% to 64% (p = 0.007). The proportion of leads in a lateral or posterolateral final position (reported for 26% of leads) increased from 66% to 82% (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The reported rate of failure to place an LV lead via the CS has decreased steadily over time. A greater proportion of failures in recent studies are due to coronary venous anatomy that is unsuitable for this technique.
Authors: Nadeev Wijesuriya; Mark K Elliott; Vishal Mehta; Baldeep S Sidhu; Marina Strocchi; Jonathan M Behar; Steven Niederer; Christopher A Rinaldi Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Zak Loring; Daniel J Friedman; Kasper Emerek; Claus Graff; Peter L Sørensen; Steen M Hansen; Bjorn Wieslander; Martin Ugander; Peter Søgaard; Brett D Atwater Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Benjamin J Sieniewicz; Timothy R Betts; Simon James; Andrew Turley; Christian Butter; Martin Seifert; Lucas V A Boersma; Sam Riahi; Petr Neuzil; Mauro Biffi; Igor Diemberger; Pasquale Vergara; Martin Arnold; David T Keane; Pascal Defaye; Jean-Claude Deharo; Anthony Chow; Richard Schilling; Jonathan Behar; Christopher A Rinaldi Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Daniel Keene; Ahran D Arnold; Marek Jastrzębski; Haran Burri; Steven Zweibel; Eric Crespo; Badrinathan Chandrasekaran; Sukhbinder Bassi; Nader Joghetaei; Matthew Swift; Pawel Moskal; Darrel P Francis; Paul Foley; Matthew J Shun-Shin; Zachary I Whinnett Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2019-08-02