ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2021
Optimal CRT Implantation-Where and How To Place the Left-Ventricular Lead?
Review in Current heart failure reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06342492 (Conduction System Vs Surgical Left Ventricular Epicardial Pacing For Coronary Sinus Lead Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
Conduction System Vs Surgical Left Ventricular Epicardial Pacing For Coronary Sinus Lead Failure
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exercise Capacity and the Force Frequency Relationship in Multi-Point Versus Single-Point Pacing: A Randomized Trial.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Trial
- Device-therapy in chronic heart failure: Cardiac contractility modulation versus cardiac resynchronization therapy.ESC heart failure · 2025Observational
- The Relationship Between the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and Electrocardiographic Parameters in Predicting Outcomes After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Computational Modelling Enabling In Silico Trials for Cardiac Physiologic Pacing.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2024Review
- The Loop Technique in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Prospective Cohort Study.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Predictors of Higher Frequency of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Article
- Combination of personalized computational modeling and machine learning for optimization of left ventricular pacing site in cardiac resynchronization therapy.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Retrograde Snaring for Left Ventricular Lead Placement in the Presence of a Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2023Article
- Leadless biventricular left bundle and endocardial lateral wall pacing versus left bundle only pacing in left bundle branch block patients.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Non-invasive estimation of QLV from the standard 12-lead ECG in patients with left bundle branch block.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) represents a well-established and effective non-pharmaceutical heart failure (HF) treatment in selected patients. Still, a significant number of patients remain CRT non-responders. An optimal placement of the left ventricular (LV) lead appears crucial for the intended hemodynamic and hence clinical improvement. A well-localized target area and tools that help to achieve successful lead implantation seem to be of utmost importance to reach an optimal CRT effect. RECENT
findingsRecent studies suggest previous multimodal imaging (CT/cMRI/ECG torso) to guide intraprocedural LV lead placement. Relevant benefit compared to empirical lead optimization is still a matter of debate. Technical improvements in leads and algorithms (e.g., multipoint pacing (MPP), adaptive algorithms) promise higher procedural success. Recently emerging alternatives for ventricular synchronization such as conduction system pacing (CSP), LV endocardial pacing, or leadless pacing challenge classical biventricular pacing. This article reviews current strategies for a successful planning, implementation, and validation of the optimal CRT implantation. Pre-implant imaging modalities offer promising assistance for complex cases; empirical lead positioning and intraoperative testing remain the cornerstone in most cases and ensure a successful CRT effect.
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.