Key result
ECG-guided LV lead implantation improves LVEF and delays re-hospitalization by ~5 months vs anatomy-guided placement.
Why the study?
Multiple cardiac resynchronization therapy strategies exist without clear superiority of any single approach, prompting an evaluation of two LV electrode implantation strategies on cardiovascular events.
Does an electrocardiography-guided left ventricular lead placement strategy improve survival and reduce re-hospitalization compared to an anatomy-guided strategy in patients with NYHA class III-IV heart failure undergoing CRT?
RCT (n=63)
randomized
Does an electrocardiography-guided left ventricular lead placement strategy improve survival and reduce re-hospitalization compared to an anatomy-guided strategy in patients with NYHA class III-IV heart failure undergoing CRT?
Absolute Event Rate: 39% vs 35%
p-value: p=0.002
Electrocardiography-guided left ventricular lead placement significantly improves survival, delays re-hospitalization, and improves LVEF compared to traditional anatomy-guided placement in patients with severe heart failure undergoing CRT.
Supports ECG-guided LV lead placement in CRT for NYHA III-IV HF; extends anatomic strategies with LVEF and rehospitalization benefits.
There is a variety of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) strategies and none has ultimate benefits over the others. Aim. To evaluate the influence of two strategies of left ventricular (LV) electrode implantation on the development of cardiovascular events in patients with chronic cardiac failure. Material and methods . This was a randomized controlled clinical trial designed to compare the effectiveness of traditional anatomy-guided LV lead positioning strategy towards the electrocardiography-guided implantation approach in an optimal branch of the coronary sinus vein, being the closest to the latest electrically activated myocardial region. Results. We enrolled 63 patients with NYHA class III or IV chronic heart failure with ventricular dyssynchrony, an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 35%, an LV end diastolic dimension exceeding 150 ml, a QRS interval over 130 ms. The survival time in electrocardiography-guided approach (study group) was equal to 11,22 months, which was significantly lower in the anatomy-guided approach (control group). Time to re-hospitalization in a study group was nearly two times longer as compared with that in patients from the control group (10,188 months versus 5,548 months). LVEF was significantly higher in the study group with median value equal to 39% versus that in the control group equal to 35% (р=0,002). Conclusions. The results of the present study demonstrate that electrocardiographyguided approach has benefits over traditional anatomy-guided approach in terms of improved cardiac structure and function in patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure associated with ventricular dyssynchrony.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sabitov et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in chronic heart failure with ventricular dyssynchrony (n=63). electrocardiography-guided LV lead positioning vs. anatomy-guided LV lead positioning was evaluated on LVEF (p=0.002). Electrocardiography-guided LV lead implantation improved LVEF (39% vs 35%, p=0.002) and prolonged time to re-hospitalization (10.19 vs 5.55 months) compared to anatomy-guided placement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: