These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Targeted left ventricular lead placement to guide cardiac resynchronization therapy: the TARGET study: a randomized, controlled trial.
    Author: Khan FZ, Virdee MS, Palmer CR, Pugh PJ, O'Halloran D, Elsik M, Read PA, Begley D, Fynn SP, Dutka DP.
    Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol; 2012 Apr 24; 59(17):1509-18. PubMed ID: 22405632.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the impact of targeted left ventricular (LV) lead placement on outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: Placement of the LV lead to the latest sites of contraction and away from the scar confers the best response to CRT. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to compare a targeted approach to LV lead placement with usual care. METHODS: A total of 220 patients scheduled for CRT underwent baseline echocardiographic speckle-tracking 2-dimensional radial strain imaging and were then randomized 1:1 into 2 groups. In group 1 (TARGET [Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to Guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy]), the LV lead was positioned at the latest site of peak contraction with an amplitude of >10% to signify freedom from scar. In group 2 (control) patients underwent standard unguided CRT. Patients were classified by the relationship of the LV lead to the optimal site as concordant (at optimal site), adjacent (within 1 segment), or remote (≥2 segments away). The primary endpoint was a ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were clinical response (≥1 improvement in New York Heart Association functional class), all-cause mortality, and combined all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalization. RESULTS: The groups were balanced at randomization. In the TARGET group, there was a greater proportion of responders at 6 months (70% vs. 55%, p = 0.031), giving an absolute difference in the primary endpoint of 15% (95% confidence interval: 2% to 28%). Compared with controls, TARGET patients had a higher clinical response (83% vs. 65%, p = 0.003) and lower rates of the combined endpoint (log-rank test, p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard CRT treatment, the use of speckle-tracking echocardiography to the target LV lead placement yields significantly improved response and clinical status and lower rates of combined death and heart failure-related hospitalization. (Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to Guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [TARGET] study); ISRCTN19717943).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]