Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2015
Clinical Outcomes of Cardiac Resynchronization with Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Chen Lu, Fu Haixia, Pretorius Victor G, Yang Dachun, Wiste Heather J, Yuan Hongtao, Feld Gregory K, Cha Yong-Mei, Birgersdotter-Green Ulrika M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can be achieved via a transvenous or epicardial route. A surgically implanted epicardial LV (eLV) lead is used after a standard transvenous LV (tLV) lead implantation has failed. However, studies of clinical outcomes in patients with eLV leads and comparisons of outcome between tLV and eLV-CRT are sparse. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare clinical response between tLV-CRT and eLV-CRT, as well as to understand the differences within the eLV-CRT population.
METHODS: Forty-four patients received eLV-CRT following unsuccessful attempts of tLV-CRT implantation between 2002 and 2013 at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Mayo Clinics. These patients were matched for age, gender, and etiology of cardiomyopathy in a 1:2 ratio with a cohort of patients who received tLV-CRT during the same time period.
RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 57 months, similar clinical outcomes and survival rate were noted between tLV and eLV-CRT patients (all P > 0.05). Within the eLV-CRT group, dilated cardiomyopathy patients had significant improvement in New York Heart Association class and ejection fraction (both P < 0.05), while ischemic cardiomyopathy patients did not (both P > 0.05). eLV-CRT patients with nonanterior lead location had significantly improved survival (P < 0.001). There was also a trend for improved survival in those with nonapical lead location (P = 0.09).
CONCLUSION: In this case-matched two-centered study, comparable improvements were noted in patients with tLV-CRT and eLV-CRT. Operators should target nonanterior and nonapical locations during eLV-CRT implantation. Use of eLV-CRT should be considered a viable alternative for CRT candidates.
METHODS: Forty-four patients received eLV-CRT following unsuccessful attempts of tLV-CRT implantation between 2002 and 2013 at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Mayo Clinics. These patients were matched for age, gender, and etiology of cardiomyopathy in a 1:2 ratio with a cohort of patients who received tLV-CRT during the same time period.
RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 57 months, similar clinical outcomes and survival rate were noted between tLV and eLV-CRT patients (all P > 0.05). Within the eLV-CRT group, dilated cardiomyopathy patients had significant improvement in New York Heart Association class and ejection fraction (both P < 0.05), while ischemic cardiomyopathy patients did not (both P > 0.05). eLV-CRT patients with nonanterior lead location had significantly improved survival (P < 0.001). There was also a trend for improved survival in those with nonapical lead location (P = 0.09).
CONCLUSION: In this case-matched two-centered study, comparable improvements were noted in patients with tLV-CRT and eLV-CRT. Operators should target nonanterior and nonapical locations during eLV-CRT implantation. Use of eLV-CRT should be considered a viable alternative for CRT candidates.