Key result
Midseptal positioning of the right ventricular lead significantly decreased LV end-diastolic diameter compared to apical positioning (-3.4 vs +1.7 mm; p=0.004).
Why the study?
Does midseptal positioning of the RV lead improve clinical outcomes and reverse LV remodeling compared to apical positioning in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Population
99 patients with symptomatic heart failure undergoing implantation of a biventricular pacing (BiV) system
Comparison
Right ventricular lead positioned at the midseptum vs Right ventricular lead placed in the apex
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
12 months
Authors
Loading...
Supports midseptal RV lead placement for LV reverse remodeling in CRT; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=99)
Does midseptal positioning of the RV lead improve clinical outcomes and reverse LV remodeling compared to apical positioning in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Absolute Event Rate: -3.4% vs 1.7%
p-value: p=0.004
Midseptal positioning of the RV lead during cardiac resynchronization therapy promotes reverse LV remodeling compared to apical positioning.
Riedlbauchová et al. (2006) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic heart failure (n=99). Midseptal positioning of the right ventricular (RV) lead vs. Apical positioning of the RV lead was evaluated on Change in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (DeltaLVEDD) (p=0.004). Midseptal positioning of the right ventricular lead significantly decreased LV end-diastolic diameter compared to apical positioning (-3.4 vs +1.7 mm; p=0.004).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: