In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.


This content is currently on FREE ACCESS, enjoy another 51 days of free consultation

 

Use of echocardiography, cardiac CT and cardiac MR to guide left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy

Session Moderated ePosters 7: contemporary cardiac resynchronization therapy: is there room for improvement?

Speaker Associate Professor Rasmus Borgquist

Congress : EHRA 2019

  • Topic : arrhythmias and device therapy
  • Sub-topic : Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
  • Session type : Moderated Posters
  • FP Number : 678

Authors : R Borgquist (Lund,SE), M Carlsson (Lund,SE), H Markstad (Lund,SE), A Werther-Evaldsson (Lund,SE), E Ostenfeld (Lund,SE), A Roijer (Lund,SE)

15 views

Authors:
R Borgquist1 , M Carlsson2 , H Markstad1 , A Werther-Evaldsson3 , E Ostenfeld2 , A Roijer3 , 1Lund University Hospital, Department of Arrhythmias - Lund - Sweden , 2Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Department of Clinical Physiology - Lund - Sweden , 3Lund University, Skane University Hospital, The Clinic for Heart Failure and Valvular Disease - Lund - Sweden ,

Citation:

Background:
Current guidelines for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) suggest targeting the latest mechanically activated segment for the left ventricular (LV) lead. 

Purpose:
To evaluate if selecting the LV target segment by preoperative multimodality imaging can help to increase responder-rate to CRT.

Methods:
We conducted a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial on 102 patients with indication for CRT (27% female, 46% ischemic cardiomyopathy, 63% NYHA class III, 74% left bundle branch block, mean ejection fraction 23%). Optimal LV lead location was defined as the latest mechanically activated available segment (free of transmural scar), determined by radial strain echocardiography, cardiac CT, and magnetic resonance imaging (CMR, n=70). Primary endpoint was reduction of LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) by =15% at six months post-implant. Secondary endpoints were clinical improvement, heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality, and pre-specified on-treatment analysis based on lead location. 

Results:
Patients were followed for 47 ±21 months. Based on imaging, optimal or adjacent lead placement was feasible in 79% and 96% of cases, respectively. The distribution of optimal, adjacent or distant lead locations did not significantly differ between groups. In 21% of cases (32% in ischemic and 9% in non-ischemic) there was some scar in the designated "optimal" segment, but in only one case was the transmurality >50%. Fifty-six percent of the patients were LVESV responders (56% intervention vs. 55% control, p=0.96), and 71% improved =1 NYHA class (74% vs. 67%, p=0.43), see table 1. In pre-specified on-treatment analysis, patients with distant LV lead placement had higher risk of HF hospitalization (p=0.013), and two-year risk of death or heart failure hospitalization was 17% compared to 3% (p=0.008) for optimal/adjacent lead-location. 

Conclusions:
Multimodality imaging guided LV lead placement did not result in increased clinical or echocardiographic response. Patients with optimal or adjacent LV lead location had lower 2-year risk of heart failure hospitalization or death, regardless of intervention group.

All (%) Control (n=49) (%)

Intervention (n=53) (%)

P-value Distant lead location (n=23) (%) Optimal / adjacent lead location (n= 79) (%) P-value
Echocardiographic responder 56 55 56 0.96 52 57 0.71

Clinical responder

(NYHA ≥1 class)
71 67 74 0.43 57 74 0.13
Heart failure hospitalization within 2 years 3 6 0 0.07 13 0 0.001
Death within 2 years 3 4 2 0.51 4 3 0.65
Death or heart failure hospitalization within 2 years 6 10 2 0.07 17 3 0.008

This content is currently on FREE ACCESS, enjoy another 51 days of free consultation

 



Based on your interests

Three reasons why you should become a member

Become a member now
  • 1Access your congress resources all year-round on the New ESC 365
  • 2Get a discount on your next congress registration
  • 3Continue your professional development with free access to educational tools
Become a member now

Our sponsors

ESC 365 is supported by Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Alliance, and Novartis Pharma AG. The sponsors were not involved in the development of this platform and had no influence on its content.

logo esc

Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease

Who we are