Premium
Clinical Outcomes of Cardiac Resynchronization with Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead
Author(s) -
CHEN LU,
FU HAIXIA,
PRETORIUS VICTOR G.,
YANG DACHUN,
WISTE HEATHER J.,
YUAN HONGTAO,
FELD GREGORY K.,
CHA YONGMEI,
BIRGERSDOTTERGREEN ULRIKA M.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.12687
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiac resynchronization therapy , cardiology , ejection fraction , cardiomyopathy , heart failure , ischemic cardiomyopathy , dilated cardiomyopathy , population , environmental health
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.