Detectable phrenic stimulation at follow-up did not significantly affect objective echocardiographic response rates (76% vs 74% in patients without PS, P=NS).
Cohort (n=211)
Does a phrenic stimulation management strategy allow effective CRT delivery and LV reverse remodeling in patients with PS at the LV target site?
Absolute Event Rate: 76% vs 74%
p-value: p=NS
BACKGROUND: Phrenic stimulation (PS) may cause intolerable symptoms and prevent CRT delivery in 2-5% of patients. We sought to ensure effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery by management of PS at the left ventricular (LV) target site. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and eleven consecutive patients received a CRT device despite PS occurrence at the LV target site at implantation, when a PS-LV difference >2V was achieved by LV stimulation programming (cathode, pacing vector). PS management strategy both at implantation and at follow-up (FU) aimed to keep the target LV implantation site. LV reverse remodeling was assessed by echocardiography before implantation and at follow-up. LV lead placement was lateral/posterolateral in all the 211 patients; 51 of 211 had detectable PS at FU, 26 of 211 (12.3%) were symptomatic. Symptoms occurred more frequently when PS-LV difference was 3V is achieved. Further improvement in lead manufacturing and pacing electronics are awaited to meet this clinical need.
Biffi et al. (Wed,) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring CRT with phrenic stimulation (n=211). Detectable phrenic stimulation at follow-up vs. No detectable phrenic stimulation at follow-up was evaluated on Objective responders at echocardiography (p=NS). Detectable phrenic stimulation at follow-up did not significantly affect objective echocardiographic response rates (76% vs 74% in patients without PS, P=NS).