Key result
Concordant LV lead position links to ~3-fold higher CRT response versus discordant placement.
Why the study?
Does concordant LV lead position guided by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT phase analysis improve echocardiographic response to CRT in patients with advanced heart failure?
Cohort (n=90)
No
Does concordant LV lead position guided by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT phase analysis improve echocardiographic response to CRT in patients with advanced heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 79% vs 26%
p-value: p=<0.01
Positioning the LV lead at the site of latest mechanical activation assessed by GMPS phase analysis significantly improves echocardiographic response to CRT.
May support targeting concordant LV leads in CRT; leaves open whether GMPS phase analysis guidance improves outcomes in randomized trials.
PURPOSE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the relationship between the site of latest mechanical activation as assessed with gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (GMPS), left ventricular (LV) lead position and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: The patient population consisted of consecutive patients with advanced heart failure in whom CRT was currently indicated. Before implantation, 2-D echocardiography and GMPS were performed. The echocardiography was performed to assess LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF). The site of latest mechanical activation was assessed by phase analysis of GMPS studies and related to LV lead position on fluoroscopy. Echocardiography was repeated after 6 months of CRT. CRT response was defined as a decrease of ≥15% in LVESV. RESULTS: Enrolled in the study were 90 patients (72% men, 67±10 years) with advanced heart failure. In 52 patients (58%), the LV lead was positioned at the site of latest mechanical activation (concordant), and in 38 patients (42%) the LV lead was positioned outside the site of latest mechanical activation (discordant). CRT response was significantly more often documented in patients with a concordant LV lead position than in patients with a discordant LV lead position (79% vs. 26%, p<0.01). After 6 months, patients with a concordant LV lead position showed significant improvement in LVEF, LVESV and LVEDV (p<0.05), whereas patients with a discordant LV lead position showed no significant improvement in these variables. CONCLUSION: Patients with a concordant LV lead position showed significant improvement in LV volumes and LV systolic function, whereas patients with a discordant LV lead position showed no significant improvements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boogers et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Advanced heart failure (n=90). Concordant left ventricular lead position vs. Discordant left ventricular lead position was evaluated on CRT response (decrease of ≥15% in left ventricular end-systolic volume) (p=<0.01). A concordant left ventricular lead position was associated with a significantly higher CRT response rate compared to a discordant position (79% vs. 26%, p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: