Why the study?
Does real-time X-MRI-guided left ventricular lead implantation improve targeted delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Does real-time X-MRI-guided left ventricular lead implantation improve targeted delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Real-time CMR-guided LV lead placement is feasible in a combined X-MRI suite and enables targeted pacing outside of scar tissue, which improves acute electrical parameters during CRT implantation.
Real-time CMR-guided LV lead placement is feasible in X-MRI; leaves open whether it improves CRT response pending prospective trials.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to test the feasibility of a purpose-built, integrated software platform to process, analyze, and overlay cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) data in real time within a combined cardiac catheter laboratory and magnetic resonance imaging scanner suite (X-MRI) to guide left ventricular (LV) lead implantation. BACKGROUND: Suboptimal LV lead position is a major determinant of poor cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response, and the optimal site is highly patient specific. Pacing myocardial scar is associated with poorer outcomes; conversely, targeting latest mechanical activation (LMA) may improve them. METHODS: Fourteen patients (age 74 ± 5.1 years; New York Heart Association functional class: 2.7 ± 0.4; 86% ischemic with ejection fraction 27 ± 7.6%; QRSd: 157 ± 19 ms) underwent CMR followed by immediate CRT implantation using derived scar and dyssynchrony data, overlaid onto fluoroscopy in an X-MRI suite. Rapid LV segmentation enabled detailed scar quantification, identification of LMA segments, and selection of myocardial targets. At coronary venography, the CMR-derived 3-dimensional shell was fused, enabling identification of viable venous targets subtended by target segments for LV lead placement. RESULTS: The platform was successful in all 14 patients, of whom 10 (71%) were paced in pre-procedurally defined target segments. Pacing in CMR-defined target segments (out of scar) showed a significant decrease in the LV capture threshold (mean difference: 2.4 [1.5 to 3.2]; p < 0.001) and shorter paced QRS duration (mean difference: 25 [15 to 34]; p < 0.001) compared with pacing in areas of CMR determined scar. In 5 (36%) patients with extensive scar in the posterolateral wall, CMR guidance enabled successful lead delivery in an alternative anatomically favorable site. Radiation dose and implant times were similar to historical controls (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Real-time CMR-guided LV lead placement is feasible and achievable in a single clinical setting and may prove helpful to preferentially select sites for LV lead placement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Behar et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: