Key result
Percutaneous LV lead placement remains the preferred CRT approach despite anatomical challenges.
This review discusses strategies to overcome challenges in percutaneous left ventricular lead placement during CRT procedures to avoid the need for epicardial lead placement.
May guide CRT lead placement decisions in complex anatomy; leaves open need for prospective validation of these strategies.
Left ventricular (LV) lead in cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is the most important and difficult lead to place, leading to abandonment of up to 10–15 % of procedures. Here we discuss various difficulties encountered in percutaneous placement of LV leads and what all can be done to ensure successful placement of the same and to prevent the already compromised patient from the requirement of epicardial lead placement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singhal et al. (2015) conducted an editorial in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronisation therapy. Left ventricular lead placement techniques was evaluated. Percutaneous left ventricular lead placement remains the preferred option for cardiac resynchronisation therapy despite anatomical challenges, with various techniques available for difficult cases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: