Empiric versus imaging guided left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy (ImagingCRT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Why the study?
Does multimodality imaging guided left ventricular lead placement improve clinical outcomes compared to empiric placement in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Population
Heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), n=192
Comparison
Multimodality imaging guided left ventricular… vs Empiric left ventricular lead placement
Design
RCT, Prospective, randomized, two-armed trial, Patient- and assessor-blinded
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
The ImagingCRT study protocol outlines a randomized trial to determine if multimodality imaging-guided LV lead placement improves clinical outcomes in heart failure patients receiving CRT.
Structured PICO
Does multimodality imaging guided left ventricular lead placement improve clinical outcomes compared to empiric placement in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
P
Population
Heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), n=192
I
Intervention
Multimodality imaging guided left ventricular (LV) lead placement (targeted to the latest activated non-scarred myocardial region by speckle tracking echocardiography, single-photon emission computed tomography, and cardiac computed tomography)
C
Comparator
Empiric left ventricular lead placement
O
Outcome
Clinical composite primary endpoint comprising all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, or unchanged or worsened functional capacity (no improvement in New York Heart Association class and <10% improvement in six-minute-walk test)composite
The ImagingCRT study protocol outlines a randomized trial to determine if multimodality imaging-guided LV lead placement improves clinical outcomes in heart failure patients receiving CRT.
Cite This Study
Sommer et al. (2013) studied this question.