Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27957193›Full record

ReviewJournal of atrial fibrillation

Pre-Implant Assessment For Optimal LV Lead Placement In CRT: ECG, ECHO, or MRI?

Matthew J Singleton, David D Spragg

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew J SingletonJohns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
David D SpraggJohns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID27957193
PMCPMC5135171
OpenAlexW2593609272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.