Key result
Computer simulations suggest that in hearts with LBBB and scar, the optimal LV lead position is a compromise between a position distant from the scar and from the septum.
Why the study?
Does left ventricular lead position relative to scar location affect the haemodynamic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in simulated LBBB heart failure?
Does left ventricular lead position relative to scar location affect the haemodynamic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in simulated LBBB heart failure?
Computational modeling suggests that for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with LBBB and scar, the optimal left ventricular lead position should balance being distant from both the scar and the septum to maximize haemodynamic response.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LV lead placement relative to scar may optimize CRT hemodynamics in LBBB; modeling extends mechanistic understanding but leaves clinical adoption open.
AIMS: It is unclear how the position of the left ventricular (LV) lead relative to a scar affects the haemodynamic response in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. We investigated this complex interaction using a computational model. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CircAdapt computational cardiovascular system model was used to simulate heart failure with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Myocardial scar was induced in four different regions of the LV free wall (LVFW). We then simulated biventricular pacing (BVP) in each heart, in which LV lead position was varied. The LV lead position leading to maximal acute change in LV stroke volume (SV) was defined as optimal lead position. In LBBB without scar, SV increase was maximal when pacing the LVFW region most distant from the septum. With a scar adjacent to the septum, maximal response was achieved when pacing remote from both the septum and the scar. When the scar was located further from the septum, the BVP-induced increase of SV was small. For all hearts, pacing from the optimal LV lead position resulted in the most homogeneous distribution of local ventricular myofibre work and the largest increase in summed left and right ventricular pump work. CONCLUSIONS: These computer simulations suggest that, in hearts with LBBB and scar, the optimal LV lead position is a compromise between a position distant from the scar and from the septum. In infarcted hearts, the best haemodynamic effect is achieved when electromechanical resynchronization of the remaining viable myocardium is most effective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huntjens et al. (2014) studied dyssynchronous heart failure with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and myocardial scar. Left ventricular lead position relative to scar location vs. Alternative LV lead positions was evaluated on Maximal acute change in LV stroke volume (SV). Computer simulations suggest that in hearts with LBBB and scar, the optimal LV lead position is a compromise between a position distant from the scar and from the septum.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: