PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 29, 2007European Heart Journal159 citationsOpen Access

Impact of left ventricular lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy on left ventricular remodelling. A circumferential strain analysis based on 2D echocardiography

View Full Paper
MBMaike BeckerRKRafael KramannAFAndreas Franke

Structured PICO

Does optimal LV lead position in CRT improve LV reverse remodelling and function in heart failure patients?

P
Population
47 heart failure patients, mean age 59 +/- 9 years, 28 men.
I
Intervention
Optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), defined as concordance or immediate neighbouring of the segment with latest systolic strain prior to CRT and segment with assumed LV lead position.
C
Comparator
Non-optimal LV lead position in CRT.
O
Outcome
Change in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and VO2max at 10 months follow-up.surrogate

Optimal LV lead position in CRT, guided by circumferential strain analysis, results in significantly greater improvement in LV function and reverse remodeling compared to non-optimal positioning.

Abstract

AIMS: To assess if myocardial deformation imaging allows definition of an optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position with improved effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on LV reverse remodelling. METHODS: Circumferential strain imaging based on tracking of acoustic markers within 2D echo images (GE Ultrasound) was performed in 47 heart failure patients (59 +/- 9 years, 28 men) at baseline, one day postoperatively, 3 and 10 months after initiation of CRT. Myocardial deformation imaging was used to determine(1) the segment with latest peak negative systolic circumferential strain prior to CRT, and(2) the segment with maximal temporal difference of peak strain before-to-on CRT as the segment with greatest benefit of CRT and assumed LV lead position. Anatomic LV lead position was determined by fluoroscopy. Optimal LV lead position was defined as concordance or immediate neighbouring of the segment with latest systolic strain prior to CRT and segment with assumed LV lead position. RESULTS: Agreement of assumed LV lead position based on strain analysis and LV lead position defined by fluoroscopy were high (kappa = 0.847). At 10 month follow-up, there was greater increase of EF (12 +/- 3 vs. 7 +/- 4%, P < 0.001), greater decrease of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (23 +/- 8 vs. 13 +/- 7 mL, P < 0.001) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (42 +/- 10 vs. 27 +/- 8 mL, P < 0.001), and greater increase of VO(2)max (2.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 1.9 +/- 1.0 mL/kg/min, P = 0.035) in the optimal (n = 28 patients) compared to the non-optimal LV lead position group (n = 19 patients). The distance between segment with latest systolic strain prior to CRT and segment with assumed LV lead position was the only independent predictor of DeltaLVEDV and DeltaLVESV at 10 month follow-up (R(2) = 0.2175, P = 0.0197) and (R(2) = 0.3774, P = 0.0054), respectively. CONCLUSION: Detailed analysis of the myocardial contraction sequence using circumferential strain imaging allows determination of the LV lead position in CRT. Optimal LV lead position in CRT defined by circumferential strain analysis results in greater improvement in LV function and more LV reverse remodelling than non-optimal LV lead position.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Becker et al. (2007) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f29d161b51e2fbf01873f2https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehm034
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper