Standard care vs. TRIVEntricular pacing in Heart Failure (STRIVE HF): a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial of triventricular pacing vs. conventional biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intermediate QRS left bundle branch block

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Representative posterior–anterior (A) and lateral (B) chest radiographs 1-day post-implantation showing a triventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator. Left ventricular leads are located in posterolateral and lateral coronary veins.

• 

  Figure 2. Standard care vs. TRIVEntricular pacing in Heart Failure (STRIVE HF) CONSORT flow diagram. CONSORT diagram adapted from Schulz et al.22 LV, left ventricular.

• 

  Figure 3. Pie charts showing the distribution of final primary (A) and secondary (B) left ventricular lead locations in the TriV group and in the biventricular group (C) determined by coronary venous anatomy. LV, left ventricular.

• 

  Figure 4. Box and whisker plots comparing echocardiographic and clinical measures at baseline and 6-month follow-up for both groups. A) Left ventricular end-systolic volume, B) Left ventricular ejection fraction, C) NT-proBNP, D) MLWHFQ score, E) 6MWT distance, F) NYHA functional class. LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume; MLWHFQ, Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; NYHA, New York Heart Association; 6MWT, 6-min walk test.

• 

  Figure 5. Cardiac resynchronization therapy volumetric response outcomes by heart failure aetiology within triventricular and biventricular groups. aVolumetric response defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume on two-dimensional echocardiography. BiV, biventricular; TriV, triventricular.