ReviewJournal of atrial fibrillation
Pre-Implant Assessment For Optimal LV Lead Placement In CRT: ECG, ECHO, or MRI?
Review in Journal of atrial fibrillation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Echocardiography in the Optimization of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.The open cardiovascular medicine journal · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves cardiac function in many patients with ventricular dyssynchrony. The optimal use of imaging for pre-implantation assessment remains a subject of debate. Here, we review the literature to date on the utility of echocardiography and cardiac MR, as well as conventional ECG, in choosing the best site for LV lead implantation. Prior to the use of imaging for pre-implantation evaluation, LV leads were placed empirically, based on average responses from population-level studies. Subsequently, patient-specific approaches have been used to maximize response. Both echocardiography and cardiac MR allow determination of areas of latest mechanical activation. Some studies have found improved response when pacing is applied at or near the site of latest mechanical activation. Similarly, both echocardiography and cardiac MR provide information about the location of any myocardial scar, which should be avoided when placing the LV lead due to variable conduction and high capture thresholds. Alternative approaches include targeting the region of latest electrical activation via measurement of the QLV interval and methods based on intraoperative hemodynamic measurements. Each of these modalities offers complementary insights into LV lead placement, so future directions include multimodality pre-implantation evaluation, studies of which are ongoing. Emerging technologies such as leadless implantable pacemakers may free implanting electrophysiologists from the constraints of the coronary sinus, making this information more useful and making non-response to CRT increasingly rare.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.