Why the study?
The long-term effects of individualized multimodality imaging-guided LV lead placement compared with routine fluoroscopy in CRT recipients, and the role of inter-lead electrical delay, were unknown.
Does individualized multimodality imaging-guided left ventricular lead placement reduce the composite of HF hospitalization or all-cause death in patients receiving CRT compared to a routine fluoroscopic approach?
Does individualized multimodality imaging-guided left ventricular lead placement reduce the composite of HF hospitalization or all-cause death in patients receiving CRT compared to a routine fluoroscopic approach?
Individualized multimodality imaging-guided LV lead placement during CRT implantation did not improve long-term clinical outcomes compared to routine fluoroscopic placement.
No long-term benefit of imaging-guided LV lead placement in CRT; challenges short-term gains and leaves adoption open pending targeted trials.
AIMS: This study aims to investigate the long-term occurrence of the composite endpoint of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or all-cause death (primary endpoint) in patients randomized to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using individualized multimodality imaging-guided left ventricular (LV) lead placement compared with a routine fluoroscopic approach. Furthermore, this study aims to evaluate whether inter-lead electrical delay (IED) is associated with improved response rate of this endpoint. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed follow-up data until November 2020 for all 182 patients included in the ImagingCRT trial for the occurrence of HF hospitalization and all-cause death. During median (inter-quartile range) time to primary endpoint/censuring of 6.7 (3.3-7.9) years, the rate of the primary endpoint was 60% (n = 53) in the imaging group compared with 52% (n = 48) in the control group [hazard ratio (HR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.81, P = 0.31]. Neither the risk of HF hospitalization (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.62-1.99, P = 0.72) nor of all-cause death differed between treatment groups (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.82-1.85, P = 0.32). The risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced among those with IED ≥100 ms when compared with those with IED <100 ms (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.98, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, an individualized multimodality imaging-guided strategy targeting LV lead placement towards the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardial segment during CRT implantation did not reduce HF hospitalization or all-cause death when compared with routine LV lead placement during long-term follow-up. Targeting the latest electrical activation should be studied as an alternative individualized strategy for optimizing LV lead placement in CRT recipients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fyenbo et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: