			Home About us Contact

LV Lead Position (lv + lead_position)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Optimal Left Ventricular Lead Position Predicts Reverse Remodeling and Survival After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE, Issue 2 2009
David Tepper MD
Background., A nonoptimal LV pacing lead position may be a potential cause for nonresponse to CRT. Methods., The site of latest mechanical activation was determined by speckle tracking radial strain analysis and related to the LV lead position on chest x-ray in 244 CRT candidates. Echocardiographic evaluation was performed after 6 months. Long-term follow-up included all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure. Results., Significant LV reverse remodeling (reduction in LV end-systolic volume from 189±83 mL to 134±71 mL, P<.001) was noted in the group of patients with a concordant LV lead position (n=153, 63%), whereas patients with a discordant lead position showed no significant improvements. In addition, during long-term follow-up (32±16 months), less events (combined for heart failure hospitalizations and death) were reported in patients with a concordant LV lead position. Moreover, a concordant LV lead position appeared to be an independent predictor of hospitalization-free survival after long-term CRT (hazard ratio: 0.22, P=.004). Conclusions., Pacing at the site of latest mechanical activation, as determined by speckle tracking radial strain analysis, resulted in superior echocardiographic response after 6 months of CRT and better prognosis during long-term follow-up. [source]

Effect of Left Ventricular Lead Concordance to the Delayed Contraction Segment on Echocardiographic and Clinical Outcomes after Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2009
JEFFREY W.H. FUNG M.D.
Introduction: The optimal left ventricular (LV) pacing site for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is unclear. The current study aims to explore the clinical significance of LV lead concordance to delayed contraction segment in CRT. Methods and Results: Concordant LV lead position was defined as the lead tip located by fluoroscopy at or immediately adjacent to the LV segment with latest contraction determined by tissue Doppler imaging. Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes among 101 consecutive patients with or without concordant LV lead positions were compared. There was no significant difference in changes in LV volumes and clinical parameters between patients with concordant (n = 46) or nonconcordant (n = 55) LV lead positions at 3 and 6 months. In multivariate analysis, the baseline asynchrony index (,= 1.092, 95% CI: 1.050,1.114; P < 0.001), but not LV lead concordance, was the only independent predictor of LV reverse remodeling. By Cox regression analysis, ischemic etiology, and LV reverse remodeling, but not LV lead concordance, were independent predictors of mortality (,= 2.475, 95% CI: 1.183,5.178; P = 0.016, and ,= 0.272, 95% CI: 0.130,0.567; P < 0.001, respectively), cardiovascular hospitalization (,= 1.551, 95% CI: 1.032,2.333; P = 0.035, and ,= 0.460, 95% CI: 0.298,0.708; P < 0.001, respectively), and heart failure hospitalization (,= 0.486, 95% CI: 0.320,0.738; P = 0.001 for LV reverse remodeling). Conclusion: LV lead concordance to the delayed contraction segment may not be a major determining factor for favorable echocardiographic and clinical outcomes after CRT. [source]

Electrocardiogram-Based Algorithm to Predict the Left Ventricular Lead Position in Recipients of Cardiac Resynchronization Systems

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2009
SYLVAIN PLOUX M.D.
Introduction: Biventricular pacing is associated with various electrocardiographic patterns depending on the position of the left ventricular (LV) lead. We aimed to develop an electrocardiogram-based algorithm to predict the position of the LV lead. Methods: The algorithm was developed in 100 consecutive recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems. QRS axis, morphology, and polarity were analyzed with a view to define the specific electrocardiographic characteristics associated with the various LV lead positions. The algorithm was prospectively validated in 50 consecutive CRT device recipients. Results: The first analysis of the algorithm was the QRS morphology in V1. A positive R wave in V1 suggested LV lateral or posterior wall stimulation. A QS pattern was specific of anterior LV leads. In the presence of an R wave in V1, V6 was analyzed to distinguish between an inferior and anterior LV lead. Inferior leads were never associated with a positive V6. To differentiate between lateral and posterior positions, we analyzed the pattern in V2. Lateral leads were associated with an R morphology in V1 and a negative V2. Posterior leads were associated with an R morphology in V1 and V2. The algorithm allowed a reliable distinction between an inferior or anterior and a lateral or posterior lead position in 90% of patients. Inferior, anterior, lateral, and posterior positions were reliably distinguished in 80% of patients. Conclusion: This algorithm predicted the position of the LV lead with a high sensitivity and predictive value. [source]