Key result
LV lead distance >47 mm from latest activation site strongly predicts CRT non-response.
Why the study?
Pacing remote from the latest electrically activated site in the left ventricle may diminish response to CRT, prompting evaluation of whether proximity between the pacing site and latest activation site increases response.
Does the proximity of the left ventricular pacing site to the latest electrically activated site predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Cohort (n=111)
Yes
Does the proximity of the left ventricular pacing site to the latest electrically activated site predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Non-invasive 3D electrical mapping demonstrates that closer proximity of the LV pacing site to the latest electrically activated region is a strong independent predictor of positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LV pacing >47 mm from latest activation predicts CRT non-response; hypothesis-generating for guided lead placement, requiring prospective trials.
AIMS: Pacing remote from the latest electrically activated site (LEAS) in the left ventricle (LV) may diminish response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We tested whether proximity of LV pacing site (LVPS) to LEAS, determined by non-invasive three-dimensional electrical activation mapping [electrocardiographic Imaging (ECGI)], increased likelihood of CRT response. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive CRT patients underwent ECGI and chest/heart computed tomography 6-24 months of post-implant. Latest electrically activated site and the distance to LVPS (dp) were assessed. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction of ≥15% at clinical follow-up defined response. Logistic regression probabilistically modelled non-response; variables included demographics, heart failure classification, left bundle branch block (LBBB), ischaemic heart disease (IHD), atrial fibrillation, QRS duration, baseline ejection fraction (EF) and LVESV, comorbidities, use of CRT optimization algorithm, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor(ACE)/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), beta-blocker, diuretics, and dp. Of 111 studied patients [64 ± 11 years, EF 28 ± 6%, implant duration 12 ± 5 months (mean ± SD), 98% had LBBB, 38% IHD], 67% responded at 10 ± 3 months post CRT-implant. Latest electrically activated sites were outside the mid-to-basal lateral segments in 35% of the patients. dp was 42 ± 23 mm [31 ± 14 mm for responders vs. 63 ± 24 mm non-responders (P < 0.001)]. Longer dp and the lack of use of CRT optimization algorithm were the only independent predictors of non-response [area under the curve (AUC) 0.906]. dp of 47 mm delineated responders and non-responders (AUC 0.931). CONCLUSION: The distance between LV pacing site and latest electrical activation is a strong independent predictor for CRT response. Non-invasive electrical evaluation to characterize intrinsic activation and guide LV lead deployment may improve CRT efficacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parreira et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with CRT indications (n=111). Distance between LV pacing site and latest electrically activated LV site (dp) vs. Longer distance (dp) was evaluated on CRT response (defined as LV end-systolic volume reduction of ≥15% at clinical follow-up) (AUC 0.931, p=<0.001). A distance of greater than 47 mm between the left ventricular pacing site and the latest electrical activation site was a strong independent predictor of non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: