Key result
Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing (WiSE-CRT) yielded similar 6-month improvements in clinical composite score (76.3% vs 68.5%; P=0.210) compared to coronary sinus CRT upgrades.
Why the study?
CRT upgrades may be less likely to improve, and outcomes of leadless LV endocardial pacing compared with coronary sinus upgrades in high-risk or previously failed patients needed evaluation.
Does leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing improve clinical composite score and LV remodeling compared to coronary sinus CRT upgrades in patients requiring CRT upgrades?
Cohort (n=225)
Does leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing improve clinical composite score and LV remodeling compared to coronary sinus CRT upgrades in patients requiring CRT upgrades?
Leadless LV endocardial pacing provides similar clinical and echocardiographic improvements to conventional coronary sinus CRT upgrades, despite being used in higher-risk patients with more comorbidities.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Endocardial CRT upgrades yielded similar clinical and remodeling response to CS upgrades in higher-risk patients; leaves open superiority and supports randomized trials before practice change.
AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrades may be less likely to improve following intervention. Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing has been used for patients with previously failed CRT or high-risk upgrades. We compared procedural and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing coronary sinus (CS) CRT upgrades with high-risk and previously failed CRT upgrades undergoing LV endocardial upgrades. METHOD AND RESULTS: Prospective consecutive CS upgrades between 2015 and 2019 were compared with those undergoing WiSE-CRT implantation. Cardiac resynchronization therapy response at 6 months was defined as improvement in clinical composite score (CCS) and a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) ≥15%. A total of 225 patients were analysed; 121 CS and 104 endocardial upgrades. Patients receiving WiSE-CRT tended to have more comorbidities and were more likely to have previous cardiac surgery (30.9% vs. 16.5%; P = 0.012), hypertension (59.2% vs. 34.7%; P < 0.001), chronic obstructive airways disease (19.4% vs. 9.9%; P = 0.046), and chronic kidney disease (46.4% vs. 21.5%; P < 0.01) but similar LV ejection fraction (30.0 ± 8.3% vs. 29.5 ± 8.6%; P = 0.678). WiSE-CRT upgrades were successful in 97.1% with procedure-related mortality in 1.9%. Coronary sinus upgrades were successful in 97.5% of cases with a 2.5% rate of CS dissection and 5.6% lead malfunction/displacement. At 6 months, 91 WiSE-CRT upgrades and 107 CS upgrades had similar improvements in CCS (76.3% vs. 68.5%; P = 0.210) and reduction in LVESV ≥15% (54.2% vs. 56.3%; P = 0.835). CONCLUSION: Despite prior failed upgrades and high-risk patients with more comorbidities, WiSE-CRT upgrades had high rates of procedural success and similar improvements in CCS and LV remodelling with CS upgrades.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sidhu et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Previously failed CRT or high-risk upgrades (n=225). Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing (WiSE-CRT) vs. Coronary sinus (CS) CRT upgrades was evaluated on Improvement in clinical composite score (CCS) at 6 months (p=0.210). Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing (WiSE-CRT) yielded similar 6-month improvements in clinical composite score (76.3% vs 68.5%; P=0.210) compared to coronary sinus CRT upgrades.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: