Why the study?
Does the anatomical left ventricular pacing site affect CRT outcome and mortality in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Does the anatomical left ventricular pacing site affect CRT outcome and mortality in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Anatomical left ventricular pacing site, as defined by the clockwise principle, did not significantly impact CRT outcome or all-cause mortality in this cohort.
LV pacing site selection should not yet guide CRT decisions; leaves open whether targeted placement improves outcomes in prospective trials.
AIMS: Left ventricular pacing site (LV-PS) was prospectively collected to test the influence of the anatomical LV-PS on the outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-six patients with standard indications for CRT underwent echocardiographic and clinical evaluation before and after CRT implantation. The LV-PS was determined from fluoroscopy using the clockwise principle (CP). The LV-PS was categorized into three prospectively defined groups: between 3 and 5 o'clock and longitudinal basal/mid-position (Group A, 'optimal'); between 12 and 2 o'clock and longitudinal mid-apical anterior position (Group B, 'non-optimal'); and all other (Group C, 'other'). Of 333 patients, followed for 0.9 years (mean), adequate images were available to define the LV-PS. Left ventricular pacing site was Group A for 118 patients, Group B for 56, and Group C for 159. The three groups were comparable regarding gender, aetiology, and NYHA class; however, patients in Group A were younger. No relation was found between the LV-PS groups and CRT outcome or all-cause mortality. However, further exploratory subanalyses suggest that LV-PS may impact outcomes in non-ischaemic patients, those with left bundle branch block, and when LV-PS is apical in location. CONCLUSION: Using the CP to define anatomical LV-PS, no relation was found between the LV-PS groups and CRT outcome and mortality. Exploratory analyses warrant further studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mortensen et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: