Key result
Left ventricular lead tip position assessed by fluoroscopy had no significant influence on long-term cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.74-1.56 for anterolateral vs posterolateral vein).
Why the study?
Does left ventricular lead tip position influence cardiovascular mortality and events in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Cohort (n=556)
No
Does left ventricular lead tip position influence cardiovascular mortality and events in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Hazard Ratio: 1.07 (95% CI 0.74–1.56)
Fluoroscopic left ventricular lead position over the free wall does not significantly influence long-term cardiovascular mortality or events in patients receiving CRT.
LV lead position was not associated with CV mortality in CRT; leaves open whether targeted placement improves outcomes in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: To determine the effects of left ventricular (LV) lead tip position on the long-term outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). SETTING: Cardiac device therapy center. PATIENTS: Five hundred and fifty-six patients (age 70.4 ± 10.7 years [mean ± standard deviation]). INTERVENTIONS: CRT-pacing or CRT-defibrillation device implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cardiovascular mortality and events over a maximum follow-up period of 9.1 years. RESULTS: Hazard ratios (HRs [95% 785]797) for cardiovascular mortality, adjusted for age, gender, QRS duration, heart failure etiology, New York Heart Association class, and presence of diabetes and atrial fibrillation, were derived for LV lead tip positions in terms of veins, circumferential, and longitudinal positions with respect to the LV chamber. For vein position, these were 1.07 (0.74-1.56) for anterolateral vein position and 1.24 (0.79-1.95) for the middle cardiac vein, compared with a posterolateral vein. For circumferential lead tip position, HRs were 1.56 (0.73-3.34) for anterolateral and 1.57 (0.76-3.25) for lateral, compared with posterior positions. For longitudinal lead tip positions, HRs were 1.02 (0.72-1.46) for basal and 1.21 (0.68-2.17) for apical, compared with mid-ventricular positions. The risk of meeting the composite endpoints of cardiovascular death or hospitalizations for heart failure and death from any cause or hospitalizations for major adverse cardiovascular events was similar among the various LV lead tip positions. CONCLUSIONS: The position of the LV lead over the LV free wall, assessed by fluoroscopy, has no influence over the long-term outcome of CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Foley et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=556). Left ventricular lead tip position (anterolateral, middle cardiac, lateral, basal, or apical) vs. Posterolateral vein, posterior, or mid-ventricular positions was evaluated on Cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74-1.56). Left ventricular lead tip position assessed by fluoroscopy had no significant influence on long-term cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.74-1.56 for anterolateral vs posterolateral vein).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: