Key result
Detectable phrenic stimulation at follow-up did not significantly affect objective echocardiographic response rates (76% vs 74% in patients without PS, P=NS).
Why the study?
Does a phrenic stimulation management strategy allow effective CRT delivery and LV reverse remodeling in patients with PS at the LV target site?
Cohort (n=211)
Does a phrenic stimulation management strategy allow effective CRT delivery and LV reverse remodeling in patients with PS at the LV target site?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LV programming to >2 V PS-LV difference permits CRT despite phrenic stimulation; leaves open long-term outcomes in Level 5 data.
BACKGROUND: Phrenic stimulation (PS) may cause intolerable symptoms and prevent CRT delivery in 2-5% of patients. We sought to ensure effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery by management of PS at the left ventricular (LV) target site. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and eleven consecutive patients received a CRT device despite PS occurrence at the LV target site at implantation, when a PS-LV difference >2V was achieved by LV stimulation programming (cathode, pacing vector). PS management strategy both at implantation and at follow-up (FU) aimed to keep the target LV implantation site. LV reverse remodeling was assessed by echocardiography before implantation and at follow-up. LV lead placement was lateral/posterolateral in all the 211 patients; 51 of 211 had detectable PS at FU, 26 of 211 (12.3%) were symptomatic. Symptoms occurred more frequently when PS-LV difference was <3V (16/16 vs 10/35, P < 0.001). Cathode and pacing vector reprogramming improved the PS-LV difference and symptoms in 14 of 23 patients. LV output as threshold +0.5V was helpful to manage PS symptoms in patients with a PS-LV ≤2V at FU. Median FU was 34.9 (16-50) months: 12 patients had tolerable PS symptoms, 76% (39/51) were objective responders at echocardiography compared to 74% (119/160) in patients without PS (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: CRT delivery at long term is feasible despite PS at the target LV site. PS management is mandatory in about 12.3% of patients at FU, with 6.6% remaining symptomatic. Symptoms improve at FU when a PS-LV >3V is achieved. Further improvement in lead manufacturing and pacing electronics are awaited to meet this clinical need.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Biffi et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring CRT with phrenic stimulation (n=211). Detectable phrenic stimulation at follow-up vs. No detectable phrenic stimulation at follow-up was evaluated on Objective responders at echocardiography (p=NS). Detectable phrenic stimulation at follow-up did not significantly affect objective echocardiographic response rates (76% vs 74% in patients without PS, P=NS).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: