ArticleTrials2018
Electrically guided versus imaging-guided implant of the left ventricular lead in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a study protocol for a double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial (ElectroCRT).
Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02346097 (ElectroCRT - Left Ventricular Lead Implant and Optimization Guided by Electrocardiography in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
ElectroCRT - Left Ventricular Lead Implant and Optimization Guided by Electrocardiography in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac remodelling and functional status after cardiac resynchronization therapy: comparison between de-novo implantation and upgrade from right ventricular pacing.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Ultra-High-Frequency ECG in Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: From Technical Concept to Clinical Application.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Machine Learning Prediction of Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Response From Combination of Clinical and Model-Driven Data.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment in patients with heart failure and prolonged QRS duration where a biventricular pacemaker is implanted to achieve faster activation and more synchronous contraction of the left ventricle (LV). Despite the convincing effect of CRT, 30-40% of patients do not respond. Among the most important correctable causes of non-response to CRT is non-optimal LV lead position.
methodsWe will enroll 122 patients in this patient-blinded and assessor-blinded, randomized, clinical trial aiming to investigate if implanting the LV lead guided by electrical mapping towards the latest LV activation as compared with imaging-guided implantation, causes an excess increase in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). The patients are randomly assigned to either the intervention group: preceded by cardiac computed tomography of the cardiac venous anatomy, the LV lead is placed according to the latest LV activation in the coronary sinus (CS) branches identified by systematic electrical mapping of the CS at implantation and post-implant optimization of the interventricular pacing delay; or patients are assigned to the control group: placement of the LV lead guided by cardiac imaging. The LV lead is targeted towards the latest mechanical LV activation as identified by echocardiography and outside myocardial scar as identified by myocardial perfusion (MP) imaging. The primary endpoint is change in LVEF at 6-month follow up (6MFU) as compared with baseline measured by two-dimensional echocardiography. Secondary endpoints include relative percentage reduction in LV end-systolic volume, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and a clinical combined endpoint of response to CRT at 6MFU defined as the patient being alive, not hospitalized for heart failure, and experiencing improvement in NYHA functional class or/and > 10% increase in 6-minute walk test. DISCUSSION: We assume an absolute increase in LVEF of 12% in the intervention group versus 8% in the control group. If an excess increase in LVEF can be achieved by LV lead implantation guided by electrical mapping, this study supports the conduct of larger trials investigating the impact of this strategy for LV-lead implantation on clinical outcomes in patients treated with CRT.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02346097 . Registered on 12 January 2015. Patients were enrolled between 16 February 2015 and 13 December 2017.
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.