Key result
Trans-apical endocardial LV pacing yields an ~82% favorable response rate, offering a viable epicardial alternative.
Why the study?
Does trans-apical endocardial LV lead implantation improve LVEF and NYHA class compared to epicardial LV pacing in patients with end-stage heart failure?
Population
23 patients with end-stage heart failure on optimized medical therapy.
Comparison
Trans-apical endocardial left ventricular lead… vs Epicardial left ventricular lead implantation
Design
RCT, randomized
Follow-up
18 months
Authors
Loading...
Trans-apical endocardial LV pacing may match epicardial outcomes in end-stage HF; leaves open confirmation in larger randomized trials.
RCT (n=23)
Does trans-apical endocardial LV lead implantation improve LVEF and NYHA class compared to epicardial LV pacing in patients with end-stage heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 81.8% vs 66.7%
Trans-apical endocardial LV lead implantation provides a viable, minimally invasive alternative to epicardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in end-stage heart failure patients.
Mihálcz et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in End-stage heart failure (n=23). Trans-apical endocardial left ventricular pacing vs. Epicardial left ventricular pacing was evaluated on Favorable response to treatment. Trans-apical endocardial left ventricular pacing yielded a favorable response in 81.8% of patients compared to 66.7% with epicardial pacing, suggesting it is a viable alternative.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: