Literature DB >> 33864874

Right ventricular lead location and outcomes among patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis.

Fatima Ali-Ahmed1, Frederik Dalgaard2, Nancy M Allen Lapointe3, Andrzej S Kosinski4, Vanessa Blumer5, Daniel P Morin6, Gillian D Sanders7, Sana M Al-Khatib5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been demonstrated to improve heart failure (HF) symptoms, reverse LV remodeling, and reduce mortality and HF hospitalization (HFH) in patients with a reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). Prior studies examining outcomes based on right ventricular (RV) lead position among CRT patients have provided mixed results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies comparing RV apical (RVA) and non-apical (RVNA) lead position in CRT.
METHODS: Our meta-analysis was constructed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE. Eligible studies reported on at least one of the following outcomes of interest: all-cause mortality, the composite endpoint of death and first HFH hospitalization, change in LVEF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement, and change in LV end systolic volume (LVESV). We performed meta-analysis summaries using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and conservatively used the Knapp-Hartung approach to adjust the standard errors of the estimated model coefficients.
RESULTS: We included nine studies representing a total of 1832 patients. Of those, 1318 (72%) patients had RVA lead placement and 514 (28%) had RVNA lead placement. The mean age of patients was 65.5 ± 4.4 years, and they were predominantly men (69%-97%). There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality by RVA vs. RVNA (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.32-1.89; I2 = 16.7%, p = 0.31), or in the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and first HFH (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.62-1.25; I2 = 0%, p = 0.84). Also, there was no difference between RVA and RVNA for NYHA class improvement (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.9-1.17; I2 = 0%, p = 0.99), change in LVEF (mean difference (MD) = 1.33, 95% CI -1.45 to 4.10; I2 = 47%; p = 0.093), and change in LVESV (MD = -1.11, 95% CI -3.34 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; p = 0.92).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that in CRT pacing, RV lead position does not appear to be associated with clinical outcomes or LV reverse remodeling. Further studies should focus on the relationship of RV lead vis-à-vis LV lead location, and its clinical importance.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Right lead location

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33864874      PMCID: PMC8667053          DOI: 10.1016/j.pcad.2021.04.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prog Cardiovasc Dis        ISSN: 0033-0620            Impact factor:   8.194


  28 in total

1.  Impact of the Right Ventricular Lead Position on Clinical End Points in CRT Recipients--A Subanalysis of the Multicenter Randomized SPICE Trial.

Authors:  Stefan Asbach; Carsten Lennerz; Verena Semmler; Christian Grebmer; Ulrich Solzbach; Axel Kloppe; Norbert Klein; Istvan Szendey; George Andrikopoulos; Stylianos Tzeis; Christoph Bode; Christof Kolb
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 1.976

2.  A randomized study of haemodynamic effects and left ventricular dyssynchrony in right ventricular apical vs. high posterior septal pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  H M Kristiansen; G Vollan; T Hovstad; H Keilegavlen; S Faerestrand
Journal:  Eur J Heart Fail       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 15.534

3.  2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA).

Authors:  Michele Brignole; Angelo Auricchio; Gonzalo Baron-Esquivias; Pierre Bordachar; Giuseppe Boriani; Ole-A Breithardt; John Cleland; Jean-Claude Deharo; Victoria Delgado; Perry M Elliott; Bulent Gorenek; Carsten W Israel; Christophe Leclercq; Cecilia Linde; Lluís Mont; Luigi Padeletti; Richard Sutton; Panos E Vardas; Jose Luis Zamorano; Stephan Achenbach; Helmut Baumgartner; Jeroen J Bax; Héctor Bueno; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Cetin Erol; Robert Fagard; Roberto Ferrari; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ales Linhart; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Massimo F Piepoli; Piotr Ponikowski; Per Anton Sirnes; Juan Luis Tamargo; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Paulus Kirchhof; Carina Blomstrom-Lundqvist; Luigi P Badano; Farid Aliyev; Dietmar Bänsch; Helmut Baumgartner; Walid Bsata; Peter Buser; Philippe Charron; Jean-Claude Daubert; Dan Dobreanu; Svein Faerestrand; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Jean-Yves Le Heuzey; Hercules Mavrakis; Theresa McDonagh; Jose Luis Merino; Mostapha M Nawar; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Burkert Pieske; Lidija Poposka; Frank Ruschitzka; Michal Tendera; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Carol M Wilson
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 29.983

4.  Left ventricular lead position and clinical outcome in the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial-cardiac resynchronization therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial.

Authors:  Jagmeet P Singh; Helmut U Klein; David T Huang; Sven Reek; Malte Kuniss; Aurelio Quesada; Alon Barsheshet; David Cannom; Ilan Goldenberg; Scott McNitt; James P Daubert; Wojciech Zareba; Arthur J Moss
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2011-03-07       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

6.  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

7.  Radiographic left ventricular-right ventricular interlead distance predicts the acute hemodynamic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  E Kevin Heist; Dali Fan; Theofanie Mela; Daniel Arzola-Castaner; Vivek Y Reddy; Moussa Mansour; Michael H Picard; Jeremy N Ruskin; Jagmeet P Singh
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2005-09-01       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  Left ventricular resynchronization is mandatory for response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: analysis in patients with echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular dyssynchrony at baseline.

Authors:  Gabe B Bleeker; Sjoerd A Mollema; Eduard R Holman; Nico Van de Veire; Claudia Ypenburg; Eric Boersma; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-09-04       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 9.  Future research prioritization in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Marat Fudim; Frederik Dalgaard; Sana M Al-Khatib; Daniel J Friedman; Kathryn Lallinger; William T Abraham; John G F Cleland; Anne B Curtis; Michael R Gold; Valentina Kutyifa; Cecilia Linde; Daniel E Schaber; Anthony Tang; Fatima Ali-Ahmed; Sarah A Goldstein; Brystana Kaufman; Robyn Fortman; J Kelly Davis; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Gillian D Sanders
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 4.749

10.  Comparison of right ventricular septal pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators: the SEPTAL CRT Study.

Authors:  Christophe Leclercq; Nicolas Sadoul; Lluis Mont; Pascal Defaye; Joaquim Osca; Elisabeth Mouton; Richard Isnard; Gilbert Habib; Jose Zamorano; Genevieve Derumeaux; Ignacio Fernandez-Lozano
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.