Key result
Targeted LV lead placement increases the rate of LVESV reduction by ~27% vs standard CRT.
Why the study?
Placing the LV lead at the latest contraction sites away from scar optimizes CRT response, but whether targeted placement improves outcomes compared with usual care needed evaluation.
Does targeted LV lead placement guided by speckle-tracking echocardiography improve echocardiographic response in patients scheduled for CRT?
RCT (n=220)
1:1
Does targeted LV lead placement guided by speckle-tracking echocardiography improve echocardiographic response in patients scheduled for CRT?
Targeted LV lead placement using speckle-tracking echocardiography significantly improves echocardiographic response, clinical status, and clinical outcomes compared to standard unguided CRT.
Targeted LV lead placement improves CRT response; extends prior data and supports clinical adoption.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the impact of targeted left ventricular (LV) lead placement on outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: Placement of the LV lead to the latest sites of contraction and away from the scar confers the best response to CRT. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to compare a targeted approach to LV lead placement with usual care. METHODS: A total of 220 patients scheduled for CRT underwent baseline echocardiographic speckle-tracking 2-dimensional radial strain imaging and were then randomized 1:1 into 2 groups. In group 1 (TARGET [Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to Guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy]), the LV lead was positioned at the latest site of peak contraction with an amplitude of >10% to signify freedom from scar. In group 2 (control) patients underwent standard unguided CRT. Patients were classified by the relationship of the LV lead to the optimal site as concordant (at optimal site), adjacent (within 1 segment), or remote (≥2 segments away). The primary endpoint was a ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were clinical response (≥1 improvement in New York Heart Association functional class), all-cause mortality, and combined all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalization. RESULTS: The groups were balanced at randomization. In the TARGET group, there was a greater proportion of responders at 6 months (70% vs. 55%, p = 0.031), giving an absolute difference in the primary endpoint of 15% (95% confidence interval: 2% to 28%). Compared with controls, TARGET patients had a higher clinical response (83% vs. 65%, p = 0.003) and lower rates of the combined endpoint (log-rank test, p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard CRT treatment, the use of speckle-tracking echocardiography to the target LV lead placement yields significantly improved response and clinical status and lower rates of combined death and heart failure-related hospitalization. (Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to Guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [TARGET] study); ISRCTN19717943).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2012) conducted an RCT in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=220). Targeted left ventricular lead placement using speckle-tracking echocardiography vs. Standard unguided CRT was evaluated on ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months (absolute difference 15%, 95% CI 2 to 28, p=0.031). Targeted left ventricular lead placement improved the rate of ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months compared with standard CRT (70% vs 55%; P=0.031).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: