Key result
Image-guided cardiac resynchronization therapy significantly increased the clinical response rate (OR 2.098) compared to standard therapy in patients with heart failure.
Why the study?
Does image-guided left ventricular lead placement improve CRT response and reverse remodeling compared to standard empiric placement in patients with heart failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=511)
Yes
Does image-guided left ventricular lead placement improve CRT response and reverse remodeling compared to standard empiric placement in patients with heart failure?
Effect estimate: OR 2.098 (95% CI 1.432-3.072)
p-value: p=<0.001
Image-guided left ventricular lead placement using echocardiography significantly improves CRT response and left ventricular reverse remodeling compared to standard empiric placement in patients with heart failure.
Supports image-guided LV lead placement to raise CRT response in heart failure; extends trial data via meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a debilitating condition that affects millions of people worldwide. One means of treating HF is cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Recently, several studies have examined the use of echocardiography (ECHO) in the optimization of left ventricular (LV) lead placement to increase the response to CRT. The objective of this study was to synthesize the available data on the comparative efficacy of image-guided and standard CRT. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases through April 2014 with the following combinations of search terms: left ventricular lead placement, cardiac resynchronization therapy, image-guided, and echocardiography-guided. Studies meeting all of the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were CRT response rate, change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and change in LV end systolic volume (LVESV). Secondary outcomes included the rates of all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalization. RESULTS: Our search identified 103 articles, 3 of which were included in the analysis. In total, 270 patients were randomized to the image-guided CRT and 241, to the standard CRT. The pooled estimates showed a significant benefit for image-guided CRT (CRT response: OR, 2.098, 95 % CI, 1.432-3.072; LVEF: difference in means, 3.457, 95 % CI, 1.910-5.005; LVESV: difference in means, -20.36, 95 % CI, -27.819 - -12.902). CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided CRT produced significantly better clinical outcomes than the standard CRT. Additional trials are warranted to validate the use of imaging in the prospective optimization of CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jin et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=511). Image-guided cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs. Standard CRT was evaluated on CRT response rate (OR 2.098, 95% CI 1.432-3.072, p=<0.001). Image-guided cardiac resynchronization therapy significantly increased the clinical response rate (OR 2.098) compared to standard therapy in patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: