Key result
LV endocardial pacing offers potentially superior hemodynamics over epicardial approaches, but controlled trials are needed.
Why the study?
Biventricular resynchronization therapy can be challenging or unsuccessful in some patients due to difficulties with LV lead implantation and associated risks of current approaches.
Does left ventricular endocardial stimulation offer a safe, effective alternative with superior hemodynamic performance compared to standard epicardial stimulation in patients with severe heart failure?
Does left ventricular endocardial stimulation offer a safe, effective alternative with superior hemodynamic performance compared to standard epicardial stimulation in patients with severe heart failure?
LV endocardial stimulation offers promising hemodynamic benefits over standard epicardial CRT, but its clinical implementation is currently limited by technical challenges and thromboembolic risks that require further technological development and validation in controlled trials.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LV endocardial stimulation should not yet change CRT practice; leaves open the need for randomized trials confirming hemodynamic superiority.
Biventricular resynchronization, a therapy recommended for patients presenting with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and ventricular dyssynchrony, requires the implantation of an LV lead, usually placed in a lateral or posterolateral tributary of the coronary sinus. Despite important progress made in the development of dedicated instrumentation, the procedure remains sometimes challenging and unsuccessful in a minority of patients. In the rare instances of unsuccessful transvenous implantations occurring in the presence of major surgical contraindications, a few operators have implanted the LV lead transseptally, an approach limited by technical difficulties and by the thromboembolic risk associated with the presence of a lead inside the LV cavity. The interest in this approach was recently renewed by 2 studies in an animal model and in humans, respectively, which both found a distinctly superior hemodynamic performance associated with endocardial compared with epicardial stimulation. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of LV endocardial stimulation, examines the various techniques of LV endocardial stimulation, and projects their future applications in light of these highly promising recent results. The implementation of endocardial stimulation will ultimately depend on: 1) the development of safe, effective, and durable instrumentation, and reliable and reproducible intraprocedural methods to identify the optimal site of stimulation; and 2) the completion of controlled trials confirming the superiority of this technique compared with standard cardiac resynchronization therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bordachar et al. (2010) conducted a review in Severe Heart Failure. Left ventricular endocardial stimulation vs. Standard epicardial stimulation was evaluated. Left ventricular endocardial stimulation offers potentially superior hemodynamic performance compared with epicardial approaches, though further development and controlled trials are required.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: