Key result
Electrical delay-guided active fixation LV leads linked to ~54% fewer HF rehospitalizations versus passive leads.
Why the study?
Targeting electrically delayed coronary sinus sites improves CRT response, but unstable LV lead positions often prevent this; the long-term effects of a novel active fixation lead guided by electrical delay were unknown.
Does a novel active fixation LV lead guided by electrical delay reduce heart failure rehospitalization and death due to heart failure in patients with HF due to coronary artery disease undergoing CRT?
Cohort (n=185)
No
Does a novel active fixation LV lead guided by electrical delay reduce heart failure rehospitalization and death due to heart failure in patients with HF due to coronary artery disease undergoing CRT?
Effect estimate: HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.24-0.88)
Absolute Event Rate: 14.3% vs 42.5%
p-value: p=0.019
The use of a novel active fixation LV lead guided by electrical delay significantly reduces heart failure rehospitalizations and mortality in patients undergoing CRT compared to conventional passive fixation leads.
Should not yet change CRT lead selection; hypothesis-generating for electrical delay-guided active fixation in CAD-related HF.
AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for heart failure (HF) recently has shown optimal results by targeting electrically delayed sites in coronary sinus (CS) branches. However this purpose often cannot be reached because of unstable left ventricular (LV) lead position. In current study were assessed the long-term effects of the novel active fixation LV lead in CS, guided by electrical delay (QLV), in patients with HF due to coronary artery disease. METHODS: One hundred eighty-five consecutive patients underwent CRT with intraoperative evaluation of QLV in the target position of the LV lead. When the novel active fixation LV lead was available, 98 consecutive patients received it, composing the Fix group. They were compared with 87 patients with a conventional passive fixation lead (No Fix group). The final LV lead position was assessed by fluoroscopy. Clinical response to CRT was assessed within a period of about 3 years: patients experiencing HF rehospitalization and death due to HF were defined as non-responders. RESULTS: = 23.095; P < 0.001). QLV was significantly greater in the Fix group (122.6 ± 33.2 ms; SE = 3.6) than in the No Fix group (97.5 ± 37.8 ms; SE = 4.9) (t = 4.17; P < 0.001). Rehospitalizations for HF were 37 in the No Fix group and 14 in the Fix group. Deaths due to HF were 49 in the No Fix group and 18 in the Fix group. Survival analysis, assessed by Cox regression, showed that the Fix group had a better outcome both for HF rehospitalizations [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.25-0.9; P = 0.023] and death due to HF (HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.31-0.97; P = 0.04) in comparison with the No Fix group. Adjustment for baseline characteristics by multivariate analysis showed that an active fixation lead in CS, as a covariate, was still significant both for HF rehospitalizations (HR 0.46; 95% CI = 0.24-0.88; P = 0.019) and for death due to HF (HR 0.5; 95% CI = 0.28-0.9; P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The novel active fixation LV lead allowed to target sites with greater QLV. Often maximum QLV was documented in basal segments, were stability of conventional passive fixation leads is not enough. Patients receiving it experienced less HF rehospitalizations and less death due to HF. Active fixation lead in CS guided by QLV can improve long-term prognosis in patients with HF due to coronary artery disease undergoing to CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Casale et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Heart failure due to coronary artery disease (n=185). Active fixation left ventricular lead guided by electrical delay vs. Conventional passive fixation left ventricular lead was evaluated on Heart failure rehospitalization (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.88, p=0.019). An active fixation left ventricular lead guided by electrical delay significantly reduced heart failure rehospitalizations (HR 0.46) compared to a conventional passive lead.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: