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: Electrically vs. imaging-guided left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a randomized controlled trial.
    Author: Stephansen C, Sommer A, Kronborg MB, Jensen JM, Nørgaard BL, Gerdes C, Kristensen J, Jensen HK, Fyenbo DB, Bouchelouche K, Nielsen JC.
    Journal: Europace; 2019 Sep 01; 21(9):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 31274152.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To test in a double-blinded, randomized trial whether the combination of electrically guided left ventricular (LV) lead placement and post-implant interventricular pacing delay (VVd) optimization results in superior increase in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stratified according to presence of ischaemic heart disease, 122 patients were randomized 1:1 to LV lead placement targeted towards the latest electrically activated segment identified by systematic mapping of the coronary sinus tributaries during CRT implantation combined with post-implant VVd optimization (intervention group) or imaging-guided LV lead implantation by cardiac computed tomography venography, 82Rubidium myocardial perfusion imaging and speckle tracking echocardiography targeting the LV lead towards the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardial segment (control group). Follow-up was 6 months. Primary endpoint was absolute increase in LVEF. Additional outcome measures were changes in New York Heart Association class, 6-minute walk test, and quality of life, LV reverse remodelling, and device related complications. Analysis was intention-to-treat. A larger increase in LVEF was observed in the intervention group (11 ± 10 vs. 7 ± 11%; 95% confidence interval 0.4-7.9%, P = 0.03); when adjusting for pre-specified baseline covariates this difference did not maintain statistical significance (P = 0.09). Clinical response, LV reverse remodelling, and complication rates did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Electrically guided CRT implantation appeared non-inferior to an imaging-guided strategy considering the outcomes of change in LVEF, LV reverse remodelling and clinical response. Larger long-term studies are warranted to investigate the effect of an electrically guided CRT strategy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]