Why the study?
Epicardial placement of the LV lead via a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach is an alternative to transvenous technique, but whether long-term safety and efficacy are comparable remained to be evaluated.
Does epicardial LV lead implantation via a video-assisted thoracoscopic technique provide comparable safety and efficacy to transvenous implantation in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Population
100 patients undergoing VAT epicardial LV lead implantation vs 100 undergoing transvenous implantation
Comparison
VAT epicardial LV lead implantation vs transvenous implantation
Design
Retrospective comparative cohort study
Follow-up
Median 24 months
Authors
Loading...
Should not yet change transvenous-first CRT practice; leaves open VAT epicardial leads as alternative in observational data.
Does epicardial LV lead implantation via a video-assisted thoracoscopic technique provide comparable safety and efficacy to transvenous implantation in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Epicardial LV lead implantation via a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach is a safe and effective alternative to transvenous implantation for cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Marini et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: