Trial reportJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2017
Using three-dimensional echocardiography to guide left ventricle lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy: does it make any difference.
Trial report in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2019Review
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for patients with advanced heart failure. Nearly 30% of candidates are inadequate responders. Proper patient selection, left ventricle (LV) lead placement optimization, and optimization of the programming of the CRT device are important approaches to improve outcome of CRT. We examined the role of three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography in determining the optimal LV lead position as a method of optimizing CRT response.
methodsForty-seven patients with a mean age of 60.2 ± 11.1 years including five (10.6%) females, all having advanced CHF (EF <35%, LBBB >120 mesc, or non-LBBB >150 msec, with NYHA II-III or ambulatory class IV) were enrolled. Detailed history (NYHA class, Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire), clinical examination, 6-min walk test, and standard 2D echocardiography were done in all cases. 3D echo detailed analysis of the LV 16 segments was done to determine the latest wall to reach the minimal systolic volume. Multisite pacing was done blind to the 3D echo data achieving a stable LV lead position in mid LV segment. This exact fluoroscopic site was determined (in two orthogonal views) and correlated with 3D most delayed area using a resized 16-segment schema. Patients were classified retrospectively into group A with concordance between the delayed LV area and LV lead position and group B with discordance between both. Patients were followed up after 3-6 (5.1 ± 1.8) months. Patients with reduction of 2D LV end-systolic volume of ≥10% at follow-up were termed volumetric responders. Poorly echogenic patients and those with decompensated NYHA class IV, sustained atrial arrhythmias, and rheumatic or congenital heart diseases were excluded.
resultsLV lead placement was concordant in 22 (46.8%) cases. After the follow-up period, 31 (65.9%) of the study population were considered volumetric responders with no significant difference among both groups (14 (63.3%) in group A vs 17 (68%) in group B, p > 0.05). CRT insertion resulted in significant improvement of NYHA class in 36 (76.5%) cases, 6-min walk test (447.2 ± 127.0 vs 369.6 ± 87.5 m, p < 0.01), MLHFQ (58.1 ± 19.7 vs 69.6 ± 13.5, p < 0.01), QRS duration (131.2 ± 13.8 vs 149.4 ± 16 msec, p < 0.01), 2D LV EF 33.0 ± 9.5 vs 25.3 ± 6.5, p < 0.001), LVESV (156.0 ± 82.9 vs177.6 ± 92.7 ml, p < 0.05), and 3D LVEF (29.1 ± 9.0 vs 23.6 ± 5.9, p < 0.001) irrespective of the etiology of heart failure. However, there were no significant differences between both groups regarding the same parameters (6-min walk test 470.8 ± 128.7 vs 428.3 ± 126.8 m, MLHFQ 56.8 ± 20.0 vs 58.11 ± 19.0, QRS duration 129.9 ± 12.4 vs 132.1 ± 15.1 msec, 2D LVEF 30.9 ± 8.3 vs 34.58 ± 10.9, LVESV 173.0 ± 110.0 vs 143.0 ± 67.9, 3D LVEF 26 ± 8 vs 31 ± 9, for groups A and B, respectively, p < 0.05).
conclusionsStandard anatomical LV lead placement remains a simple, practical, and effective method in patients undergoing CRT. 3D echocardiography-guided LV lead placement added no clinical benefit compared to standard techniques.
Indexed as
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.