Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29797055›Full record

ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2018

ICD lead type and RV lead position in CRT-D recipients.

Alexander P Benz, Mate Vamos, Julia W Erath, Peter Bogyi, Gabor Z Duray, Stefan H Hohnloser

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Left ventricular electrode placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2025
    Article
  2. [Lead placement in cardiac implantable electronic devices].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Implementation of an intensified outpatient follow-up protocol improves outcomes in patients with ventricular assist devices.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019
    Article
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

6 authors.

Alexander P BenzDivision Clinical Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Mate VamosDivision Clinical Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Julia W ErathDivision Clinical Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Peter BogyiDepartment of Cardiology, Medical Centre, Hungarian Defence Forces, Róbert Károly krt. 44, Budapest, 1134, Hungary.
Gabor Z DurayDepartment of Cardiology, Medical Centre, Hungarian Defence Forces, Róbert Károly krt. 44, Budapest, 1134, Hungary.
Stefan H HohnloserDivision Clinical Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. hohnloser@em.uni-frankfurt.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData on preferred ICD lead type and optimal RV lead position in patients undergoing CRT-D implantation are limited.

objectivesTo compare dual- versus single-coil ICD leads and non-apical versus apical RV lead position and their impact on clinical parameters and survival in CRT-D recipients.

methodsA total of 563 consecutive patients with advanced heart failure and indication for CRT-D implantation were enrolled in two European tertiary centers. Endpoints were improvement in NYHA functional class, changes in echo- and electrocardiographic parameters, and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

resultsIn this retrospective analysis, a total of 313 (56%) dual- and 250 (44%) single-coil ICD leads were used. RV leads were placed non-apically in 262 (47%) and apically in 296 (53%) patients, respectively. Over a mean follow-up of 41 ± 34 months, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were similar for patients with dual- versus single-coil ICD lead (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58-1.12 and aHR 1.22, 95% CI 0.73-2.04) and non-apical versus apical RV lead position (aHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71-1.36 and aHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44-1.31). Non-apical RV lead position was associated with greater reduction in QRS duration after CRT implantation (- 14.4 ± 32.1 vs. - 4.3 ± 34.3 ms, p < 0.001).

conclusionsWe found no association between ICD lead type or RV lead position and outcomes in CRT-D recipients. Non-apical RV lead position was associated with larger reduction in QRS duration.

Indexed as

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy DevicesDefibrillators, ImplantableAgedCardiac Resynchronization TherapyEchocardiographyElectrocardiographyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeart FailureHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesApicalCRTDual coilLead positionSeptalSingle coil

Identifiers

PMID29797055

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.