Search

Abstract Aims Preferring side branch of coronary sinus during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation has been empirical due to the limited data on the association of left ventricular (LV) lead position and long‐term clinical outcome. We evaluated the long‐term all‐cause mortality by LV lead non‐apical positions and further characterized them by interlead electrical delay (IED). Methods and results In our retrospective database, 2087 patients who underwent CRT implantation were registered between 2000 and 2018. Those with non‐apical LV lead locations were classified into anterior (n = 108), posterior (n = 643), and lateral (n = 1336) groups. All‐cause mortality was assessed by Kaplan–Meier and Cox analyses. Echocardiographic response was measured 6 months after CRT implantation. During the median follow‐up time of 3.7 years, 1150 (55.1%) patients died—710 (53.1%) with lateral, 78 (72.2%) with anterior, and 362 (56.3%) with posterior positions. When we investigated the risk of all‐cause mortality, there was a significantly lower rate of death in patients with lateral LV lead location when compared with those with an anterior (P

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Using ECG-gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), we sought to develop and validate a new method to recommend left ventricular (LV) lead positions in order to improve volumetric response and long-term prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).Methods: Seventy-nine patients received gated SPECT MPI at baseline, and echocardiography at baseline and follow-up. The volumetric response referred to a reduction of ≥ 15% in LV end-systolic volume 6 months after CRT. After excluding apical, septal, and scarred segments, there were three levels of recommended segments: (1) the optimal recommendation: the latest contracting viable segment; (2) the 2nd recommendation: the late contracting viable segments whose contraction delays were within 10° of the optimal recommendation; and (3) the 3rd recommendation: the viable segments adjacent to the optimal recommendation when there was no late contracting viable segment.Results: After excluding 11 patients whose LV lead was placed in apical or scarred segments, 75.6% of the patients concordant to recommended LV segments (n = 41) responded to CRT while 51.9% of those with non-recommended LV lead locations (n = 27) were responders (P = .043). Response rates were 76.9%, 76.9% , and 73.3% (P = .967), respectively, when LV lead was implanted in the optimal recommendation (n = 13), the 2nd recommendation (n = 13), and the 3rd recommendation (n = 15). LV leads placed at recommended segments reduced composite events of all-cause mortality or heart failure (HF) rehospitalization compared with pacing at non-recommended segments (log-rank χ2 = 5.623, P = .018).Conclusions: Pacing in the recommended LV lead segments identified on gated SPECT MPI was associated with improved volumetric response to CRT and long-term prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Preferring side branch of coronary sinus during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation has been empirical due to the limited data on the association of left ventricular (LV) lead position and long‐term clinical outcome. We evaluated the long‐term all‐cause mortality by LV lead non‐apical positions and further characterized them by interlead electrical delay (IED). Methods and results: In our retrospective database, 2087 patients who underwent CRT implantation were registered between 2000 and 2018. Those with non‐apical LV lead locations were classified into anterior (n = 108), posterior (n = 643), and lateral (n = 1336) groups. All‐cause mortality was assessed by Kaplan–Meier and Cox analyses. Echocardiographic response was measured 6 months after CRT implantation. During the median follow‐up time of 3.7 years, 1150 (55.1%) patients died—710 (53.1%) with lateral, 78 (72.2%) with anterior, and 362 (56.3%) with posterior positions. When we investigated the risk of all‐cause mortality, there was a significantly lower rate of death in patients with lateral LV lead location when compared with those with an anterior (P < 0.01) or posterior (P < 0.01) position. Multivariate analysis after adjustment for relevant clinical covariates such as age, sex, ischaemic aetiology, left bundle branch block morphology, atrial fibrillation, and device type revealed consistent results that lateral position is associated with a significant risk reduction of all‐cause mortality when compared with anterior [hazard ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55–0.87; P < 0.01] or posterior (hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.74–0.96; P < 0.01) position. When echocardiographic response was evaluated within the lateral group, patients with an IED longer than 110 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.63; 95% CI 0.53–0.73; P = 0.012) showed 2.1 times higher odds of improvement in echocardiographic response 6 months after the implantation. Conclusions: In this study, we proved in a real‐world patient population that after CRT implantation, lateral LV lead location was associated with long‐term mortality benefit and is superior to both anterior and posterior positions. Moreover, patients with this position showed the greatest echocardiographic response over 110 ms IED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) induces segmental left ventricular (LV) remodeling. The LV lead position (LV-LP) affects response to CRT and remodeling.Objective: We aimed to assess segmental remodeling concordant, adjacent, and remote to LV-LP using cardiac computed tomography (CT).Methods: We included patients from the Empiric Versus Imaging-Guided Left Ventricular Lead Placement in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy trial. Dynamic cardiac CT was performed at baseline and after 6 months. We assessed systolic wall thickening (WT) and exact LV-LP from the CT scans according to a 16-segment model. Response to CRT was defined as ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume.Results: A total of 107 consecutive patients were included. The change in WT from baseline to follow-up was -19% (95% confidence interval [CI] -25% to -13%; P < .001) in concordant segments, -0.1% (95% CI -5% to 5%; P = .97) in adjacent segments, and 20% (95% CI -17% to 23%; P < .001) in remote segments. Diastolic wall thickness changed only marginally. Twenty patients (19%) were nonresponders at follow-up. In nonresponders with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, we observed a significant reduction in WT in concordant and adjacent segments with no increase in WT in remote segments.Conclusion: During CRT, systolic WT increases in segments remote to LV-LP, decreases in concordant segments, and remains unchanged in adjacent segments. Only marginal changes occur in wall thickness. In nonresponders with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, deleterious changes in segmental myocardial function occur, and further studies on how to treat these patients best are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: In a randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), a presumed optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position close to the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardium was achieved in 98% of patients by standard implantation. We evaluated whether inter-lead electrical delay (IED) was associated with response to CRT in these patients.Methods and results: We prospectively included 160 consecutive patients undergoing CRT. Pre-implant speckle-tracking echocardiography radial strain and 99mTc myocardial perfusion imaging determined the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardial segment. We measured procedural IED as the time interval between sensed signals in right ventricular and LV lead electrograms. All patients had LV pacing site concordant or adjacent to the latest mechanically activated non-scarred segment verified by cardiac computed tomography. Response to CRT was defined as ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months follow-up. Selecting a practical IED cut-off value of 100 ms, more patients with long IED than patients with short IED responded to CRT (87 vs. 68%; P = 0.004). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, IED ≥100 ms remained associated with CRT response after adjusting for baseline characteristics, including QRS duration and scar burden [odds ratio 3.19 (1.24-8.17); P = 0.01]. Categorizing IED by tertiles, CRT response improved with longer IED (P = 0.03). Comparable response rates were observed in patients with a concordant and adjacent LV lead position.Conclusion: A longer IED was associated with more pronounced LV reverse remodelling response in CRT recipients with a presumed optimal LV lead position concordant or adjacent to the latest mechanically activated non-scarred segment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Up to 30-45% of implanted patients are non-responders to CRT. We evaluated the role of a 'CRT team' using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and longitudinal myocardial strain to identify the target area defined as the most delayed and viable region for LV pacing.Methods and Results: A total of 100 heart failure patients candidates for CRT divided into two groups were enrolled. Group 1 consisted of 50 consecutive patients scheduled for CRT and prospectively included. Group 2 (control) consisted of 50 patients with a CRT device implanted according to standard clinical practice and matched for age, sex, and LVEF with group 1. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. In group 1, patients underwent two-dimensional speckle-tracking assessment of longitudinal myocardial strain and CMR imaging to identify the target area for LV lead pacing. A positive response to CRT was defined as a reduction of ≥15% of the LV end-systolic volume at 6-month follow-up. A total of 39 (78%) patients of group 1 were classified as responders to CRT whilst in group 2, only 28 (56%) were responders (P = 0.019). The 'CRT team' identified as target for LV pacing the lateral area in 30 (60%) patients, and the anterolateral or posterolateral areas in 12 (24%) patients. In 8 (16%) patients, the target was far from the lateral area, in the anterior or posterior areas. The patients with concordant position exhibited the highest positive response (93.1%) to CRT.Conclusions: Multimodality cardiac imaging as a guide for CRT implantation is useful to increase response rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Fluoroscopy is the routine method for localizing left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) lead positions in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the ability of fluoroscopy to determine lead positions in a standard ventricular segmentation is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of fluoroscopy to determine LV and RV lead positions in CRT when compared with cardiac computed tomography (CT). Methods and results Fifty-nine patients undergoing CRT were included. Bi-plane fluoroscopy and cardiac CT were evaluated in all patients. Pacing lead positions were assessed in a standard LV 16-segment model and in a simplistic RV 8-segment model. Four patients with LV lead displacement were excluded from the agreement analysis of LV lead position. Agreement of LV lead position between fluoroscopy and cardiac CT was observed in 19 (35%) patients with fluoroscopy demonstrating a 1-segment and ≥2-segment error in 30 (55%) and 6 (11%) patients, respectively. Agreement of RV lead position was found in 13 (22%) patients with fluoroscopy showing a 1-segment and ≥ 2-segment error in 28 (47%) and 18 (31%) patients, respectively. The interobserver agreement on LV and RV lead positions was poor for fluoroscopy (kappa 0.20 and 0.23, respectively) and excellent for cardiac CT (kappa 0.87 and 0.85, respectively). Conclusion Fluoroscopy is inaccurate and modestly reproducible when assessing LV and RV lead positions in a standard ventricular segmentation when compared with cardiac CT. Cardiac CT should be applied to determine the exact pacing site in future research evaluating the optimal pacing lead position in CRT. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background Cardiac resynchronisation therapy ( CRT) is established in the management of cardiac failure in patients with systolic dysfunction. Clinical response to CRT is not uniform, and response has been difficult to predict. Aim Patient management within a high volume, multidisciplinary service focused on optimal delivery of CRT would improve response rates. Methods Four hundred and thirty-five consecutive patients who underwent CRT under a multidisciplinary heart failure service were enrolled prospectively over a 5-year period. Medically optimised, symptomatic patients with an ejection fraction ( EF) <35%, widened QRS or abnormal dyssynchrony index were included. Left ventricular lead position was targeted anatomically to the segment of latest mechanical activation, and electrically to a site with maximal intrinsic intracardiac electrogram separation. Routine device and clinical follow up, as well as CRT optimisations, were performed at baseline and at 3-monthly intervals. Responders were defined as having an absolute reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter >10% and an improvement in EF >5%. Results With a mean follow up of 53 ± 11 months, response rate to CRT was 81%. Mean EF improved from 26 ± 10% to 37 ± 11%, and mean left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduced from 68.6 ± 9.2 mm to 57.8 ± 9.3 mm. Predictors of response were sinus rhythm, high dyssynchrony index and intrinsic electrical dyssynchrony >80ms. Successful LV lead implantation at initial procedure was achieved in 99.1%, and at latest follow up 94.6% of initial LV leads were still active. Conclusion CRT undertaken with a unit focus on optimal LV lead positioning and device optimisation, along with a multidisciplinary follow-up model, results in an excellent response rate to CRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position has emerged as an important determinant of response after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Comparatively, strategy for right ventricular (RV) lead optimization remains uncertain. Methods: Three variations of RV lead position (apex, mid-septal, and high septal) were tested in seven consecutive patients. At each location, intra-procedural measurement of LV lead electrical delay (LVLED) was obtained during intrinsic rhythm and RV pacing (RV-LVLED). Simultaneous cardiac output assessment was performed using the LiDCO™ (lithium chloride indicator dilution) system. Final RV lead location was selected based on best-measured cardiac output. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 months. Results: Adjustment of RV lead position after securing a LV lead site led to an incremental change of 30 ± 18 % (range, 7-52 %) in the cardiac index (CI). There was substantial variation in acute hemodynamic response (∆CI, 14 ± 13 %; range, 3-41 %) seen with pacing from each patient's worst to best RV lead position; no single RV lead position emerged as optimal across all patients. Paced RV-LVLED was not correlated with percent change in CI ( r = 0.18; p = NS). LV ejection fraction (LVEF) increased significantly (28 ± 4 to 40 ± 8 %, p = 0.006) at 6 months. LVLED measured during intrinsic rhythm, but not during RV pacing, correlated with percent change in LVEF ( r = 0.88, p = 0.02). Conclusions: RV lead position adjustment can be used to enhance acute hemodynamic response during CRT. Measurement of paced RV-LVLED, however, does not reliably predict change in cardiac output. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To investigate the effect of implantation-related characteristics, especially lead position and left ventricular (LV)-paced QRS morphology, on long-term mortality and morbidity in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients. Methods and results The study retrospectively analysed 362 consecutive patients who underwent CRT device implantation over a 6 year period. Pre-implantation, LV-only paced, and biventricularly paced 12-lead electrocardiograms were obtained. Left ventricular and right ventricular (RV) lead positions were determined using biplane fluoroscopy and roentgenograms. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate the survival function for all-cause death/hospitalization and cardiovascular death/hospitalization. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were also applied. The mean follow-up time was 24.7 ± 16.9 months. There were 79 deaths (62 cardiovascular) and 99 unplanned hospitalizations (72 cardiovascular). One year and 2 year all-cause mortality rates were 8.5 and 18.0%, respectively. Electrocardiographic and fluoroscopic descriptors of the LV lead position were found to be predictors of mortality/morbidity (as were functional class, heart failure aetiology, hyponatremia, and chronic atrial fibrillation). In particular, the antero-apical pattern of LV-only paced QRS showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.8 in univariate and 1.7 in multivariate analysis for predicting all-cause death/hospitalization (P = 0.006). The apical/paraseptal LV lead position showed an HR of 2.1 in univariate and 1.9 in multivariate analysis for predicting cardiovascular death/hospitalization (P = 0.018). Conclusion To achieve better long-term outcomes in CRT patients the antero-apical pattern of LV QRS complexes and apical or paraseptal LV lead position should be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Aims We aimed to evaluate the influence of left ventricular (LV) lead position on the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients. Methods and results Left ventricular (LV) lead position was evaluated by biplane coronary venograms and anterior/posterior, lateral chest X-rays in patients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial – Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT). The LV lead location could be defined in 797 of 1089 patients (73%). The LV lead was placed at the LV apex in 110 (14%) patients, in the anterior position in 146 (18%), in the lateral position in 448 (56%), and in the posterior position in 93 (12%) patients. After adjustment for clinical covariates, lateral or posterior lead location was associated with significantly lower risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38–0.85; P = 0.006] when compared with an anterior lead location. Patients with anterior lead position had similar risk of VT/VF as patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-only (HR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.72–1.81; P = 0.837). There was no difference in the risk of mortality between posterior or lateral and anterior LV lead locations. Conclusion Cardiac resynchronization therapy with posterior or lateral LV lead position is associated with decreased risk of arrhythmic events in comparison with anterior lead location and ICD-only patients. There is no evidence for increased risk of VT/VF episodes associated with CRT. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Observational data suggest that an anterior or apical left ventricular (LV) position in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with worse outcome and higher likelihood of "nonresponse." It is not known whether the benefits of optimizing LV lead position in a second procedure outweighs the procedural risks., Objective: To evaluate the clinical effects of LV lead repositioning., Methods: During the period 2015-2020, we identified all patients in whom the indication for the procedure was LV lead repositioning owing to "nonresponse" in combination with suboptimal LV lead position. All patients were followed with a structured visit 6 months post LV lead revision. Heart failure hospitalization and mortality data were gathered from the medical records and cross-checked with the population registry., Results: A total of 25 patients were identified who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All procedures were successful in establishing LV lead pacing in a lateral mid or basal location. Median follow-up was 2.5 years [1.1-3.7]. There were improvements in NYHA class (mean -0.5 ± 0.5 class, P < .001), LV ejection fraction (+5 [interquartile range 2-11] absolute %, P = .01), QRS duration (-36 [-44 to -8], P < .001) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (-615 [-2837 to +121] ng/L, P = .03). Clinical outcome was similar to a reference population with CRT ( P = ns)., Conclusion: In nonresponders to CRT with either an anterior or inferior LV lead position, it was feasible to perform LV lead repositioning in all cases, with a low complication rate. Changing the LV lead position was associated with improved LV ejection fraction, larger QRS reduction, and larger NT-proBNP reduction., (© 2022 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: There is a paucity of data concerning the use of QRS morphology patterns for identifying pacing sites during left ventricle (LV)-only epicardial pacing in patients with a biventricular device. The objective of this study was to identify QRS patterns during LV-only pacing, and to establish their relationship with LV lead position. In addition, to validate the diagnostic performance of such electrocardiogram (ECG) patterns for predicting posterolateral versus anterior and apical versus nonapical LV pacing site. Methods: The study retrospectively analyzed data from 376 cardiac resynchronization therapy device patients. Data analyzed included ECGs registered during LV-only VVI pacing, fluoroscopic projections, and lateral chest roentgenograms that documented postimplantation LV lead position. Phase one of the study involved categorization of the ECG patterns of the first 66 study cases. Phase two of the study examined the association between ECG pattern and different LV lead positions. Results: As the LV epicardial pacing site became more anteroapical, the LV-only paced QRS complexes in the precordial leads became more negative. Three ECG patterns were identified (posterolateral, intermediate, and anteroapical), and their distribution was found to be associated with LV lead position (P < 0.001). The posterolateral ECG pattern was mostly observed in cases where the LV lead was in the posterolateral area (diagnostic accuracy of 89.1% for predicting a nonapical LV lead position). The anteroapical ECG pattern was associated with LV leads in anteroapical segments (specificity of 98.5%, accuracy of 89.1% for predicting an anteroapical pacing site). Conclusions: Posterolateral and anteroapical ECG patterns are highly predictive of LV lead position. (PACE 2012; 35:1361-1368) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is demonstrated to be effective in patients with advanced heart failure. Correcting mechanical dyssynchrony is proposed as the predominant mechanism of response. Achieving optimum left ventricular lead position, at the site of maximal mechanical dyssynchrony but away from transmural scar, is identified as one of the main determinants of both symptomatic and prognostic benefit. Strategies employing multimodality cardiac imaging techniques have been used to identify this optimal pacing site, in addition to any potential anatomical limitations to successful implantation. Speckle tracking echocardiography offers prospective lead targeting, incorporating pathophysiological determinants of cardiac resynchronization therapy response. This review considers the key factors in defining optimum left ventricular lead location, emphasizing the role of myocardial scar. The use of speckle tracking echocardiography and the potential for this technique to be incorporated into routine practice to guide the implant strategy in an individual patient is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A left ventricular lead position concordant to viable myocardium at the site of latest mechanical activation is associated with a better response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The present study aimed to guide left ventricular (LV) lead implantation into a vein over the area of latest mechanical activation with no transmural scar as determined by radial strain measured by non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: Patients admitted for CRT implantation underwent MRI on the day before pacemaker implantation. Time to peak radial strain in ventricular segments was measured to define the site of latest mechanical activation. Areas with peak radial strain less than 16.5% were defined as transmural scar. Venograms were visualized to define the optimal vein for LV lead positioning. Echocardiograms, 6-min hall walk test, and NYHA class were obtained at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up. Results: Sixteen patients were included. In nine patients the lead was positioned at the primary target site, and in six patients a secondary was used owing to phrenic nerve stimulation (one patient), unstable lead position (two patients) and lack of suitable vein (three patients) at the primary target site. In three patients pre-implant MRI changed the implanters primary target vein. Conclusion: Non-contrast MRI can be used to detect the site of latest mechanical activation by radial strain to guide LV lead positioning in candidates for CRT. Image guided LV lead implantation in CRT patients may in some patients change the primary target tributary of the coronary sinus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position is thought to be a major predictor of response in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). While the post-implant posterior-anterior (PA) and lateral chest X-ray (CXR) is commonly used to determine the position of the LV lead, the accuracy to which the CXR can correctly localize the LV lead is unknown. Methods: We collected data on 47 consecutive patients (mean age 64 years, 60% men and LV ejection fraction 23%, 49% ischemic cardiomyopathy) that underwent CRT between 2004 and 2007, who had both a post-implant CXR as well as a contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) of the chest for any reason. The positions of the LV lead on CXR and MDCT were interpreted in a blinded fashion, independent of each other. The accuracy of the CXR in localizing various LV lead positions, with MDCT as the gold standard, was recorded. Results: On CXR, the LV lead tip position was as follows: basal (4%), mid-ventricular (66%), and apical (30%) and anterior (2%), lateral (34%), and posterior (64%). On MDCT, the LV tip position was: basal (28%), mid-ventricular (60%), and apical (13%) and anterior (13%), lateral (19%), and posterior (68%). Compared to the MDCT gold standard, the percentage of LV lead positions the CXR correctly classified correctly were: 100% basal, 39% mid-ventricular, and 29% apical and 0% anterior, 12% lateral, and 77% posterior. Taking both PA and lateral views into consideration, the LV lead position was misclassified by CXR in 62% cases. Conclusion: Using MDCT as a gold standard, the routine post-implant CXR performs very modestly in terms of accurate LV lead positioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Post-implant lateral and postero-anterior chest X-rays (CXR) are often utilized to determine the final LV lead tip position after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study sought to compare post-implant standard CXRs with intra-procedural rotational coronary venous angiography (RCVA) to localize the final LV lead position. Methods: Sixty-four patients undergoing CRT (69.2 ± 11.4 years; males 68.7%; ischemic cardiomyopathy 59.4%; NYHA class 2.9 ± 0.5 and LV ejection fraction 24% ± 9%) were included in the study. RCVA was done by recording a rapid 4-second isocentric cine-loop from RAO 55° to LAO 55° (120 frames). Conventional CXR method (CC) and a composite CXR strategy (CM) based on two-view CXR were separately compared with RCVA. Results: The most common pacing site was lateral (64.1%), followed by postero-lateral (23.4%) and antero-lateral (10.9%). In 73.4% (47) cases, the LV lead position was misclassified by CC as compared to RCVA. Among the 47 (73.4%) cases misclassified by CC approach, 35 had lateral LV lead position misclassified by CC as postero-lateral (77%), posterior (20%) and antero-lateral (3%). On the other hand, CM strategy classified the LV lead position correctly in 46 (71.9%) of the patients ( p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The composite CXR strategy is a useful method for post-procedure LV lead localization. Due to its simplicity, it can be widely applied in post-implant evaluation of LV lead position in CRT patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study explored the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on left ventricular (LV) twist, particularly in relation to LV lead position. Background: LV twist is emerging as a comprehensive index of LV function. Methods: Eighty heart failure patients were included. Two-dimensional echocardiography was performed at baseline, immediately after CRT, and at 6-month follow-up. Speckle-tracking analysis was applied to assess LV twist. The LV lead was placed preferably in a (postero)lateral vein, and at fluoroscopy, the position was classified as basal, midventricular, or apical. Response to CRT was defined as reduction of LV end-systolic volume ≥15% at 6-month follow-up. A control group comprised 30 normal subjects. Results: Peak LV twist in heart failure patients was 4.8 ± 2.6° compared with 15.0 ± 3.6° in the control subjects (p < 0.001). At 6-month follow-up, peak LV twist significantly improved only in responders (56%), from 4.3 ± 2.4° to 8.5 ± 3.2° (p < 0.001). The strongest predictor of response to CRT was the improvement of peak LV twist immediately after CRT (odds ratio: 1.899, 95% confidence interval: 1.334 to 2.703, p < 0.001). Furthermore, LV twist significantly improved in patients with an apical (from 4.3 ± 3.1° to 8.6 ± 3.0°, p = 0.001) and midventricular (from 4.8 ± 2.2° to 6.4 ± 3.9°, p = 0.038) but not with a basal (5.0 ± 3.3° vs. 4.1 ± 3.2°, p = 0.28) LV lead position. Similarly, LV ejection fraction significantly increased in patients with an apical (from 26 ± 7% to 37 ± 7%, p < 0.001) and midventricular (from 26 ± 6% to 33 ± 8%, p < 0.001) but not with a basal (26 ± 5% vs. 28 ± 8%, p = 0.30) LV lead position. Conclusions: An immediate improvement of LV twist after CRT predicts LV reverse remodeling at 6-month follow-up. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) offers proven benefit to patients with refractory symptomatic chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association Class III or IV), severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction <35%), and LV dyssynchrony (QRS width >120 ms). Cardiac resynchronization therapy has the potential to improve survival and functional capacity, reduce hospital admissions, and promote LV reverse remodelling. Although difficult to truly evaluate, up to 30% of patients do not attain symptomatic benefit. Factors associated with a poor outcome include inappropriate patient selection, inadequate device programming, presence of myocardial scar, and suboptimal LV lead placement. Left ventricular dyssynchrony is an important determinant of CRT response, although at present no reliable single measure to identify patients beyond QRS width has been identified. In this review, we discuss the effect of LV lead placement to pace the region of maximal dyssynchrony, the impact of total scar burden on response, and the relationship between LV lead position and localized scar. Consideration is also given to prospectively defining placement of the LV lead including surgical epicardial lead positioning. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: This study evaluated if selecting the left ventricular (LV) target segment by echocardiography-derived late mechanical activation, with access to multimodality imaging for scar and venous anatomy, could help to increase responder rates to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)., Background: LV lead placement is important for clinical outcome, but the optimal strategy for LV lead placement in CRT is still debated., Methods: This study conducted a prospective, blinded randomized controlled trial on 102 patients with indication for CRT (27% women, 46% with ischemic cardiomyopathy, 63% in New York Heart Association functional class III, 74% with left bundle branch block, and with mean ejection fraction of 23%). Optimal LV lead location was defined as the latest mechanically activated available segment (free of transmural scar), determined by radial strain echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance (n = 70). The primary endpoint was reduction of LV end-systolic volume by ≥15% at 6 months post-implantation., Results: Patients were followed for 47 ± 21 months. Based on imaging, optimal or adjacent lead placement was feasible in 96% of all cases and was obtained in 83% of the intervention group versus 80% of the control group. Fifty-six percent of the patients were LV end-systolic volume responders compared with the control group (55%) (p = 0.96), and 71% improved ≥1 New York Heart Association functional class (74% vs. 67%; p = 0.43). Death or heart failure hospitalization within 2 years occurred in 6% (2% of the intervention group vs. 10% of the control group; p = 0.07)., Conclusions: Radial strain-guided LV lead placement, in combination with multimodality imaging, did not result in increased clinical or echocardiographic response, nor in a significant reduction of death or heart failure hospitalization. (Combining Myocardial Strain and Cardiac CT to Optimize Left Ventricular Lead Placement in CRT Treatment [CRT Clinic]; NCT01426321)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Fluoroscopy is the routine method for localizing left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) lead positions in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the ability of fluoroscopy to determine lead positions in a standard ventricular segmentation is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of fluoroscopy to determine LV and RV lead positions in CRT when compared with cardiac computed tomography (CT)., Methods and Results: Fifty-nine patients undergoing CRT were included. Bi-plane fluoroscopy and cardiac CT were evaluated in all patients. Pacing lead positions were assessed in a standard LV 16-segment model and in a simplistic RV 8-segment model. Four patients with LV lead displacement were excluded from the agreement analysis of LV lead position. Agreement of LV lead position between fluoroscopy and cardiac CT was observed in 19 (35%) patients with fluoroscopy demonstrating a 1-segment and ≥2-segment error in 30 (55%) and 6 (11%) patients, respectively. Agreement of RV lead position was found in 13 (22%) patients with fluoroscopy showing a 1-segment and ≥ 2-segment error in 28 (47%) and 18 (31%) patients, respectively. The interobserver agreement on LV and RV lead positions was poor for fluoroscopy (kappa 0.20 and 0.23, respectively) and excellent for cardiac CT (kappa 0.87 and 0.85, respectively)., Conclusion: Fluoroscopy is inaccurate and modestly reproducible when assessing LV and RV lead positions in a standard ventricular segmentation when compared with cardiac CT. Cardiac CT should be applied to determine the exact pacing site in future research evaluating the optimal pacing lead position in CRT., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2014. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)