Key result
Modified snare technique for LV leads linked to ~69% fewer 4-year reinterventions versus standard methods.
Why the study?
LV lead placement for CRT fails in up to 10% of cases due to complex coronary anatomies, prompting evaluation of a modified snare technique when standard methods fail.
Does a modified snare technique improve left ventricular lead implant success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing CRT compared to standard techniques?
Cohort (n=566)
Does a modified snare technique improve left ventricular lead implant success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing CRT compared to standard techniques?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.2% vs 10.2%
p-value: p=<.05
A modified snare technique for LV lead placement in CRT is safe and effective when standard methods fail, reducing long-term procedural reinterventions and improving CRT response rates.
May support modified snare when standard LV lead placement fails in CRT; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) lead placement is the most challenging aspect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation, with a failure rate of up to 10% due to complex coronary anatomies. We describe a modified snare technique for LV lead placement and evaluate its safety and efficacy in cases when standard methods fail. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective study was conducted of patients indicated for a CRT implant. When LV lead delivery to the target vessel failed using standard techniques, a modified snare technique was employed. Patients were evaluated every 6 months. From 2015 to 2019, 566 CRTs were implanted (26.1% female, 72 ± 10.2 years old, follow-up duration 18.9 ± 15.8 months). The standard LV implant technique failed in 94 cases (16.6%), of which the modified snare technique was successful in 92 (97.9%). There were no differences between the modified snare and standard techniques in the rates of 30-day postimplant CRT all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 1.7%, p = .33), 4-year all-cause mortality (15.9% vs. 15.5%, p = .49), or major acute complications (7.4% vs. 3.8%, p = .12). However, the 4-year procedural reintervention rate was lower with the modified snare technique (3.2% vs. 10.2%, p < .05), specifically LV implant failure or dislodgement rates (0% vs. 5.3%, p < .05), improving the response rate (71.8% vs. 55.1%, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: For challenging coronary sinus anatomies that preclude LV lead placement by standard methods, this modified snare alternative was safe and effective, with comparable mortality and complications, but significantly lower procedural reintervention and higher response rates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marques et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Patients indicated for a CRT implant (n=566). Modified snare technique vs. Standard LV implant technique was evaluated on 4-year procedural reintervention rate (p=<.05). A modified snare technique for left ventricular lead placement resulted in a lower 4-year procedural reintervention rate compared to standard methods (3.2% vs. 10.2%, p<.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: