Key result
An electrocardiogram-based algorithm reliably distinguished between inferior/anterior and lateral/posterior left ventricular lead positions in 90% of patients, and all four positions in 80%.
Why the study?
Does an electrocardiogram-based algorithm accurately predict the left ventricular lead position in recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy systems?
Observational (n=150)
Does an electrocardiogram-based algorithm accurately predict the left ventricular lead position in recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy systems?
A simple ECG-based algorithm using QRS morphology in leads V1, V2, and V6 can reliably predict the anatomical position of the left ventricular lead in CRT recipients.
May support noninvasive LV lead localization in CRT; leaves open need for prospective validation before clinical use.
INTRODUCTION: Biventricular pacing is associated with various electrocardiographic patterns depending on the position of the left ventricular (LV) lead. We aimed to develop an electrocardiogram-based algorithm to predict the position of the LV lead. METHODS: The algorithm was developed in 100 consecutive recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems. QRS axis, morphology, and polarity were analyzed with a view to define the specific electrocardiographic characteristics associated with the various LV lead positions. The algorithm was prospectively validated in 50 consecutive CRT device recipients. RESULTS: The first analysis of the algorithm was the QRS morphology in V(1). A positive R wave in V(1) suggested LV lateral or posterior wall stimulation. A QS pattern was specific of anterior LV leads. In the presence of an R wave in V(1), V(6) was analyzed to distinguish between an inferior and anterior LV lead. Inferior leads were never associated with a positive V(6). To differentiate between lateral and posterior positions, we analyzed the pattern in V(2). Lateral leads were associated with an R morphology in V(1) and a negative V(2). Posterior leads were associated with an R morphology in V(1) and V(2). The algorithm allowed a reliable distinction between an inferior or anterior and a lateral or posterior lead position in 90% of patients. Inferior, anterior, lateral, and posterior positions were reliably distinguished in 80% of patients. CONCLUSION: This algorithm predicted the position of the LV lead with a high sensitivity and predictive value.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ploux et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients (n=150). Electrocardiogram-based algorithm was evaluated on Reliable distinction between an inferior or anterior and a lateral or posterior lead position. An electrocardiogram-based algorithm reliably distinguished between inferior/anterior and lateral/posterior left ventricular lead positions in 90% of patients, and all four positions in 80%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: