Key result
In non-LBBB patients receiving CRT, a long left ventricular lead electrical delay (≥50%) was associated with a lower rate of heart failure hospitalization compared to a short delay (HR 0.34; P=0.011).
Why the study?
Does a long left ventricular lead electrical delay (LVLED ≥50%) improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Population
144 patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), mean age 67 ± 12 years, 43% non-LBBB.
Comparison
Left ventricular pacing site characterized by… vs Left ventricular pacing site characterized by…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
3 years
Authors
Loading...
May support LV lead targeting by electrical delay in non-LBBB CRT; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Cohort (n=144)
Does a long left ventricular lead electrical delay (LVLED ≥50%) improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Hazard Ratio: 0.34
Absolute Event Rate: 36% vs 61%
p-value: p=0.011
Targeting a left ventricular pacing site with a long electrical delay (≥50% of QRS width) is associated with improved clinical outcomes in both LBBB and non-LBBB patients receiving CRT.
Kandala et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=144). Long left ventricular lead electrical delay (LVLED ≥50%) vs. Short LVLED (<50%) was evaluated on Time to first heart failure hospitalization (HFH) in non-LBBB patients (HR 0.34, p=0.011). In non-LBBB patients receiving CRT, a long left ventricular lead electrical delay (≥50%) was associated with a lower rate of heart failure hospitalization compared to a short delay (HR 0.34; P=0.011).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: