Heart rhythm O2 · 2022
On-screen image-guided lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Feasibility and outcome in a multicenter setting.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wouters Philippe C, van Slochteren Frebus J, Tuinenburg Anton E, Doevendans Pieter A, Cramer Maarten-Jan M, Delnoy Peter-Paul H M, van Dijk Vincent F, Meine Mathias
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Image guidance to assist left ventricular (LV) lead placement may improve outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but previous approaches and results varied greatly, and multicenter feasibility is lacking altogether.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the multicenter feasibility of image guidance for periprocedural assistance of LV lead placement for CRT.
METHODS: In 30 patients from 3 hospitals, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed within 3 months prior to CRT to identify myocardial scar and late mechanical activation (LMA). LMA was determined using radial strain, plotted over time. Segments without scar but clear LMA were classified as optimal for LV lead placement, according to an accurate 36-segment model of the whole heart. LV leads were navigated using image overlay with periprocedural fluoroscopy. After 6 months, volumetric response and super-response were defined as ≥15% or ≥30% reduction in LV end-systolic volume, respectively.
RESULTS: Periprocedural image guidance was successfully performed in all CRT patients (age 66 ± 10 years; 59% men, 62% with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 69% with left bundle branch block). LV leads were placed as follows: within (14%), adjacent (62%), or remote (24%) from the predefined target. According to the conventional 18-segment model, a remote position occurred only once (3%). On average, 86% of patients demonstrated a volumetric response (mean LV end-systolic volume reduction 36 ± 29%), and 66% of all patients were super-responders.
CONCLUSION: On-screen image guidance for LV lead placement in CRT was feasible in a multicenter setting. Efficacy will be further investigated in the randomized controlled ADVISE (Advanced Image Supported Lead Placement in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial (NCT05053568).
OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the multicenter feasibility of image guidance for periprocedural assistance of LV lead placement for CRT.
METHODS: In 30 patients from 3 hospitals, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed within 3 months prior to CRT to identify myocardial scar and late mechanical activation (LMA). LMA was determined using radial strain, plotted over time. Segments without scar but clear LMA were classified as optimal for LV lead placement, according to an accurate 36-segment model of the whole heart. LV leads were navigated using image overlay with periprocedural fluoroscopy. After 6 months, volumetric response and super-response were defined as ≥15% or ≥30% reduction in LV end-systolic volume, respectively.
RESULTS: Periprocedural image guidance was successfully performed in all CRT patients (age 66 ± 10 years; 59% men, 62% with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 69% with left bundle branch block). LV leads were placed as follows: within (14%), adjacent (62%), or remote (24%) from the predefined target. According to the conventional 18-segment model, a remote position occurred only once (3%). On average, 86% of patients demonstrated a volumetric response (mean LV end-systolic volume reduction 36 ± 29%), and 66% of all patients were super-responders.
CONCLUSION: On-screen image guidance for LV lead placement in CRT was feasible in a multicenter setting. Efficacy will be further investigated in the randomized controlled ADVISE (Advanced Image Supported Lead Placement in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial (NCT05053568).