Key result
Non-right ventricular apex lead positioning was associated with a higher rate of progression to severe or massive tricuspid regurgitation compared to right ventricular apex positioning.
Why the study?
It was unclear whether the cardiac implantable electronic device lead tip position (right ventricular apex vs other locations) influences the development of lead-related tricuspid regurgitation, heart failure exacerbation, or mortality.
Does non-RVA lead position compared to RVA lead position affect the progression of tricuspid regurgitation, heart failure exacerbation, and mortality in patients receiving cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Cohort (n=102)
No
Does non-RVA lead position compared to RVA lead position affect the progression of tricuspid regurgitation, heart failure exacerbation, and mortality in patients receiving cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Non-apical right ventricular lead positioning is associated with a higher rate of progression to severe or massive tricuspid regurgitation compared to apical positioning, though it does not impact mid-term heart failure exacerbation or mortality.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Non-RVA lead position was associated with more severe TR; leaves open whether positioning influences progression or mortality.
BACKGROUND: The most frequent mechanism of lead-related tricuspid regurgitation (LRTR), which occurs in 7.2% to 44.7% of patients implanted with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED), is leaflet impingement or the restriction of its movement by a ventricular lead. It is unclear if the position of the lead tip - in the right ventricular apex (RVA) or other location (non-RVA) - has any influence on the development of LRTR. The study aimed to determine the impact of the CIED lead tip position on the development or progression of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) and its potential impact on heart failure exacerbation and mortality. METHODS: One hundred and two consecutive patients who received CIEDs between March 2020 and October 2021 were included in the prospective registry (PACE-RVTR). Patients were assigned to two groups depending on the lead position - the RVA group and the non-RVA group. All patients underwent echocardiographic evaluation before implantation and one year later. RESULTS: In terms of baseline clinical characteristics, the two groups did not differ. Before CIED implantation, patients in the non-RVA group had better left ventricular systolic function (P = 0.004). Pacemakers were implanted more often in the non-RVA group (P = 0.001) while implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the RVA group (P = 0.008). Progression to severe or massive TR was more common in the non-RVA group (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Severe and massive TR occurred more often in patients with the non-RVA position of the lead. The right ventricular lead position did not impact heart failure progression or all-cause mortality at two-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chodór-Rozwadowska et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Patients receiving cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) (n=102). Non-right ventricular apex (non-RVA) lead position vs. Right ventricular apex (RVA) lead position was evaluated on Progression to severe or massive tricuspid regurgitation (p=0.005). Non-right ventricular apex lead positioning was associated with a higher rate of progression to severe or massive tricuspid regurgitation compared to right ventricular apex positioning.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: