Key result
Robotically assisted left ventricular lead placement achieved an 81% clinical response rate at 3 months and 71% at a mean follow-up of 16.7 months, with no postoperative mortality.
Why the study?
Does robotically assisted left ventricular epicardial lead placement improve clinical response and reverse remodeling in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization?
Cohort (n=42)
Does robotically assisted left ventricular epicardial lead placement improve clinical response and reverse remodeling in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization?
Robotic left ventricular epicardial lead placement is a safe and effective alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy, demonstrating durable clinical response and reverse remodeling at midterm follow-up.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support robotic LV lead placement in CRT candidates; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice without RCTs.
BACKGROUND: : Robotically assisted left ventricular (LV) lead placement is an effective minimally invasive rescue procedure for cardiac resynchronization in the setting of failed coronary sinus lead insertion. The long-term response rate and durability of this technique has not been reported. The authors evaluated the midterm outcome of biventricular pacing performed with robotically placed LV leads. METHODS: : Forty-two patients underwent implantation of LV epicardial leads using robotic assistance and the posterior approach. Half of the patients had prior cardiac surgery. All leads were placed in an optimal site along the posterolateral surface of the LV. The patients were prospectively followed up for clinical response, LV reverse remodeling, and LV lead stability over a mean period of 16.7 ± 9.5 months (range, 3-34 months). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine predictors of response. RESULTS: : All patients had successful LV lead placement with no postoperative mortality. Statistically significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction, NYHA heart failure class, systolic left ventricular internal dimension index, and diastolic left ventricular internal dimension index. The 3-month clinical response rate was 81% and dropped to 71% at average maximal follow-up. Multivariate analysis of 9 variables revealed only LVEF greater than 15% and absence of pulmonary hypertension to be predictors of response. No difference in operative time, response rate, or LV lead stability was detected when primary versus reoperative cases were compared. CONCLUSIONS: : Robotic LV lead placement is a reliable technique for optimal lead placement with durable long-term results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DeRose et al. (2006) conducted a cohort in Failed coronary sinus lead insertion requiring cardiac resynchronization (n=42). Robotically assisted left ventricular lead placement was evaluated on Clinical response at average maximal follow-up. Robotically assisted left ventricular lead placement achieved an 81% clinical response rate at 3 months and 71% at a mean follow-up of 16.7 months, with no postoperative mortality.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: