Key result
Surgical placement of an epicardial LV lead guided by electroanatomic mapping significantly improved LV ejection fraction from 31.0% to 42.2% at 6 months (p=0.006).
Why the study?
For CRT candidates with failed LV lead placement or undergoing concomitant cardiac surgeries, surgical epicardial LV lead placement guided by electroanatomic mapping may offer an alternative strategy.
Does surgical placement of an epicardial LV lead guided by electroanatomic mapping improve QRS duration, LVEF, and NYHA class in CRT candidates with failed transvenous placement or concomitant cardiac surgeries?
Observational (n=10)
Does surgical placement of an epicardial LV lead guided by electroanatomic mapping improve QRS duration, LVEF, and NYHA class in CRT candidates with failed transvenous placement or concomitant cardiac surgeries?
Absolute Event Rate: 42.2% vs 31%
p-value: p=0.006
Surgical epicardial LV lead placement guided by electroanatomic mapping is a feasible and effective alternative for CRT candidates with failed transvenous approaches or concomitant cardiac surgery.
Supports alternative in failed transvenous CRT cases; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective trials before adoption.
INTRODUCTION: For those cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates who experience left-ventricular (LV) lead placement failure or underwent concomitant cardiac surgeries, surgical placement of epicardial LV lead guided by electroanatomic mapping may be a promising alternative. METHODS: Electroanatomic mapping was used to guide positioning of the LV lead through a surgical approach. The LV lead was placed at the region with the latest local LV activation and normal voltage, away from the scar. RESULTS: From April 2010 to September 2018, 10 consecutive patients (3 female) underwent surgical epicardial LV lead implantation. Among them, 3 had other surgical indications simultaneously (including 1 CRT non-responder), and 7 had failed transvenous LV lead placement. After CRT, the QRS duration was shortened from 149.3 ± 20.4 ms to 125.1 ± 15.2 ms (p = 0.01). At 6 months, the LV ejection fraction was significantly improved and remained stable in the follow-up (FU) period thereafter (baseline vs. 6 months, 31.0 ± 8.3% vs. 42.2 ± 13.4%, p = 0.006). Other parameters, including the threshold and impedance of the LV lead, were also stable at a mean FU of 755 ± 406 days, and the NYHA functional classification decreased from 2.9 ± 0.7 to 1.8 ± 0.8 (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of an epicardial LV lead guided by electroanatomic mapping could be used as an adjunctive strategy in patients who were unable or refractory to conventional CRT therapy. This approach could also be applied in patients who had other surgical indications at the same time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gu et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Failed transvenous LV lead placement in CRT candidates (n=10). Surgical placement of epicardial LV lead guided by electroanatomic mapping vs. Baseline was evaluated on LV ejection fraction at 6 months (p=0.006). Surgical placement of an epicardial LV lead guided by electroanatomic mapping significantly improved LV ejection fraction from 31.0% to 42.2% at 6 months (p=0.006).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: