PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 26, 2026Journal of the American College of Cardiology377 citations

Optimal Left Ventricular Lead Position Predicts Reverse Remodeling and Survival After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

View Full Paper
CYClaudia YpenburgRBRutger J. van BommelVDVictoria Delgado

Key Result

A concordant left ventricular lead position at the site of latest mechanical activation independently predicted hospitalization-free survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy (HR 0.22; P=0.004).

Key Points

  • This study aims to assess the impact of left ventricular lead position on outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy.
  • Evaluated 244 CRT candidates using speckle tracking radial strain analysis to determine LV lead position.
  • Performed echocardiographic evaluations at 6 months post-CRT.
  • Conducted long-term follow-up for all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations.
  • Concordant LV lead position resulted in significant reverse remodeling with a reduction of LV end-systolic volume to 134 +/- 71 ml (p < 0.001).
  • Patients with a concordant lead position had fewer heart failure hospitalizations and deaths during a follow-up of 32 +/- 16 months.
  • A concordant LV lead position was an independent predictor of hospitalization-free survival (HR: 0.22, p = 0.004).

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=244)

PICO

P
Population
244 cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates evaluated for left ventricular lead position and followed for a mean of 32 months.
E
Exposure / Comparator
Concordant left ventricular lead position vs Discordant left ventricular lead position
O
Primary Outcome
Hospitalization-free survival (combined heart failure hospitalizations and death) — HR 0.22, p=0.004

Main Result

Hazard Ratio: 0.22

p-value: p=0.004

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to evaluate echocardiographic parameters after 6 months of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) as well as long-term outcome in patients with the left ventricular (LV) lead positioned at the site of latest activation (concordant LV lead position) as compared with that seen in patients with a discordant LV lead position. BACKGROUND: A nonoptimal LV pacing lead position may be a potential cause for nonresponse to CRT. METHODS: The site of latest mechanical activation was determined by speckle tracking radial strain analysis and related to the LV lead position on chest X-ray in 244 CRT candidates. Echocardiographic evaluation was performed after 6 months. Long-term follow-up included all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure. RESULTS: Significant LV reverse remodeling (reduction in LV end-systolic volume from 189 +/- 83 ml to 134 +/- 71 ml, p < 0.001) was noted in the group of patients with a concordant LV lead position (n = 153, 63%), whereas patients with a discordant lead position showed no significant improvements. In addition, during long-term follow-up (32 +/- 16 months), less events (combined for heart failure hospitalizations and death) were reported in patients with a concordant LV lead position. Moreover, a concordant LV lead position appeared to be an independent predictor of hospitalization-free survival after long-term CRT (hazard ratio: 0.22, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Pacing at the site of latest mechanical activation, as determined by speckle tracking radial strain analysis, resulted in superior echocardiographic response after 6 months of CRT and better prognosis during long-term follow-up.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ypenburg et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (CRT candidates) (n=244). Concordant left ventricular lead position vs. Discordant left ventricular lead position was evaluated on Hospitalization-free survival (combined heart failure hospitalizations and death) (HR 0.22, p=0.004). A concordant left ventricular lead position at the site of latest mechanical activation independently predicted hospitalization-free survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy (HR 0.22; P=0.004).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a6679c6045db4012802c466https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.06.046
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper