Cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes with left ventricular lead concordant with latest mechanical activation: A meta‐analysis. Issue 8 (21st June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Allen LaPointe, Nancy M.; Ali‐Ahmed, Fatima; Dalgaard, Frederik; Kosinski, Andrzej S.; Sanders Schmidler, Gillian; Al‐Khatib, Sana M.
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 45:Issue 8(2022)
• Page Start: 930
• Page End: 939
• Publication Date: 2022-06-21
• Subjects: cardiac resynchronization therapy -- heart failure -- left ventricular lead placement -- left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony -- meta‐analysis; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14549
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: For cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), image‐guided approaches targeting left ventricular (LV) lead placement at the site of latest mechanical activation had inconsistent outcomes. We examined evidence for improved CRT outcomes when LV lead placement concordant with latest mechanical activation occurred. Methods: A review of EMBASE and PubMed was performed for randomized controlled trials or prospective observational studies from October 2008 through October 2020 comparing outcomes with concordant versus discordant LV lead placement. Meta‐analyses were performed to assess the association between concordance and death, death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, ≥ 15% reduction in LV end systolic volume (LVESV), and changes in LVESV or ejection fraction (LVEF). Results: From 5897 citations, nine publications (eight studies) with 1355 patients were selected; 975 with a concordant LV lead and 380 with a discordant lead. Mean age was 66–68 years, 82% were male, and 64% had ischemic cardiomyopathy. Meta‐analyses demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in death/HF hospitalization at 2 years (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.16, 0.92) and LVESV at 6 months (mean difference [MD] ‐13.4%; 95% CI ‐6.7%, ‐20.0%), and an increase in LVEF (MD 4.03; 95% CI 0.77, 7.30) with the concordant LV lead. There were trends toward decreased death at 2 years (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.19, 1.23) and ≥ 15% reduction in LVESV at 6 months (OR 3.81; 95% CI 0.24, 61.24) with concordant LV lead placement. Conclusion: A concordant LV lead was associated with better CRT outcomes. Further study of feasible methods to achieve LV lead concordance is needed.