Trial reportJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2018
Right ventricular lead location, right-left ventricular lead interaction, and long-term outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.
Trial report in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Right ventricular lead location and outcomes among patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis.Progress in cardiovascular diseasesPooled it
- The impact of right ventricular lead position on outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effects of right ventricular (RV) lead location and the combination of RV and left ventricular (LV) lead locations on long-term outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) are not well understood.
methodsOur cohort consisted of 743 CRT-D patients from MADIT-CRT. We evaluated long-term death and combined heart failure or death (HF/death) in patients with non-apical RV vs. apical RV leads. We further assessed these long-term outcomes based on the combination of RV and LV leads, termed "RV-LV lead interaction." Patients with non-apical RV and apical LV leads and those with apical RV and non-apical LV leads were described to have "discordant RV and LV leads." Patients with RV and LV leads that were both non-apical or both apical were defined to have "concordant RV and LV leads."
resultsThere were no differences in death and HF/death between patients with non-apical RV vs. apical RV leads. However, patients with non-apical RV and apical LV leads had higher mortality risk, relative to those with apical RV and non-apical LV leads (HR = 4.06, 95% CI 1.73-9.53, p = 0.001) as well as those with both leads in the non-apical (HR = 3.82, 95% CI 1.33-10.98, p = 0.013) or apical (HR = 3.40, 95% CI 1.24-9.37, p = 0.018) positions. There was no difference in HF/death by RV-LV lead sub-groups.
conclusionAmong CRT-D patients, long-term outcomes were similar for non-apical RV and apical RV leads. However, mortality risk was increased with discordant RV and LV leads, when a non-apical RV lead was combined with an apical LV lead.
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.