Key result
Effective cardiac resynchronization therapy was hypothesized to be deliverable using two leads in the coronary sinus, avoiding the need for leads crossing the tricuspid valve.
Why the study?
For some patients requiring CRT, placing leads across the tricuspid valve may not be possible or desirable.
Does CRT using 2 leads in the coronary sinus provide effective resynchronization in patients requiring CRT where crossing the tricuspid valve is not possible or desirable?
Does CRT using 2 leads in the coronary sinus provide effective resynchronization in patients requiring CRT where crossing the tricuspid valve is not possible or desirable?
Proposes a novel CRT pacing strategy using two coronary sinus leads to avoid crossing the tricuspid valve.
May enable CRT delivery when tricuspid crossing is undesirable; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective outcome data.
For some patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), placing leads across the tricuspid valve (TV) may not be possible or desirable.1 We hypothesized that effective CRT can be delivered using 2 leads in the coronary sinus (CS)—a quadripolar left ventricular (LV) pacing lead in a lateral branch and a bipolar LV lead placed in the anteroseptal branch, replacing the usual right ventricular (RV) lead (Figure 1A and 1B).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sivakumaran et al. (2025) conducted a letter in Patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). CRT using 2 leads in the coronary sinus vs. Usual right ventricular (RV) lead was evaluated. Effective cardiac resynchronization therapy was hypothesized to be deliverable using two leads in the coronary sinus, avoiding the need for leads crossing the tricuspid valve.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: