Key result
Transvenous LV-lead placement for CRT shortens ICU stays by ~3 days vs epicardial placement.
Why the study?
Does epicardial LV-lead placement compared to transvenous placement improve procedural outcomes or lead parameters in patients receiving CRT?
Population
80 consecutive patients with symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction and an indication for cardiac…
Comparison
Epicardial LV-lead placement via a left lateral… vs Percutaneous transvenous LV-lead placement via…
Design
RCT, randomized
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
Favors transvenous LV-lead placement for CRT to minimize ICU and ventilation needs; confirms less invasive approach benefits in randomized data.
RCT (n=80)
randomized
Does epicardial LV-lead placement compared to transvenous placement improve procedural outcomes or lead parameters in patients receiving CRT?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.66% vs 3.8%
Transvenous LV-lead placement is less invasive with shorter ICU stays, while epicardial placement reduces radiation and contrast exposure, with both offering similar 6-month lead parameters.
Doll et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction (n=80). Transvenous LV-lead placement vs. Epicardial LV-lead placement was evaluated on ICU stay (days). Transvenous LV-lead placement for CRT resulted in shorter ICU stays (0.66 vs. 3.8 days) and ventilation times (0.34 vs. 3.2 h) compared to epicardial placement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: