Key result
Imaging-guided LV-lead placement cuts mortality and HF hospitalization by ~40% vs control.
Why the study?
A large portion of patients undergoing CRT are non-responders, prompting exploration of imaging-guided LV-lead placement as an alternative to traditional placement.
Does imaging-guided LV-lead placement reduce the composite of mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Meta-Analysis (n=691)
Does imaging-guided LV-lead placement reduce the composite of mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Hazard Ratio: 0.6 (95% CI 0.4–0.88)
p-value: p=0.01
Imaging-guided LV-lead placement during cardiac resynchronization therapy significantly reduces mortality and heart failure hospitalizations while improving functional status compared to traditional placement.
Supports imaging-guided LV-lead placement in CRT; confirms and extends RCT evidence for targeted positioning.
BACKGROUND: Among patients with heart failure and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction despite guideline directed medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization (CRT) is an effective technology to reverse LV remodeling. Given that a large portion of patients are non-responders, alternatives to traditional LV-lead placement have been explored. A promising alternative is image targeted placement of an LV-lead to latest mechanically activated segment without scar. METHODS: Electronic database search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the imaging-guided LV-lead placement on clinical, echocardiographic, and functional outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included CRT responders, New York Heart Association (NYHA), 6-minute walk test, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), and ejection fraction (EF) changes. RESULTS: Analysis included 4 RCTs of 691 patients with an average follow-up of 2 years (age 69.5 ± 10.3 years, 76% males, 54% ischemic cardiomyopathy, 81% with NYHA classes III/IV, and EF of 24.4% ± 8). The most common site for LV-lead paced segment was the anterolateral segment (45%) and at mid-LV (49%). Compared with the control, imaging-guided LV-lead placement was associated with a significant reduction of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.40-0.88; p = .01), higher CRT responders (odd ratio [OR] = 2.10; p < .01), more NYHA improvements by ≥1 (OR = 1.89; p = .01), increased 6MWT (mean difference [MD] = 25.78 feet; p < .01), and lower MLHFQ (MD = -4.04; p = .04), without significant differences in the LVEF (p = .08). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CRT, imaging-guided LV-lead placement was associated with improved clinical, echocardiographic, and functional status.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kheiri et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction (n=691). Imaging-guided LV-lead placement vs. Control (traditional LV-lead placement) was evaluated on Composite of mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.88, p=0.01). Imaging-guided LV-lead placement significantly reduced the composite of mortality and heart failure hospitalization compared with control (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.88; p=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: