Left Ventricular Lead Electrical Delay Is a Predictor of Mortality in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

被引:35
|
作者
Roubicek, Tomas [1 ]
Wichterle, Dan [2 ,3 ]
Kucera, Pavel [1 ]
Nedbal, Pavel [1 ]
Kupec, Jindrich [1 ]
Sedlakova, Jana [1 ]
Cerny, Jan [1 ]
Stros, Jan [1 ]
Kautzner, Josef [2 ,3 ]
Polasek, Rostislav [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Reg Hosp Liberec, Dept Cardiol, Liberec, Czech Republic
[2] Inst Clin & Expt Med, Dept Cardiol, Prague, Czech Republic
[3] Tech Univ Liberec, Inst Hlth Studies, Liberec, Czech Republic
来源
关键词
bundle-branch block; cardiac resynchronization therapy; heart failure; hospitalization; mortality; CHRONIC HEART-FAILURE; SURVIVAL;
D O I
10.1161/CIRCEP.115.003004
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Electric left ventricular lead position, assessed by the electric delay from the beginning of the QRS complex to the local LV electrogram (QLV), was found in previous studies to be a strong predictor of short-term response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. We hypothesized that suboptimum electric position of the left ventricular lead is associated with an excess of heart failure events and mortality. Methods and Results We analyzed the clinical outcome of patients with left bundle branch block or intraventricular conduction delay treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy at our institution during 9 years. Baseline clinical characteristics, QLV/QRS duration (QLV ratio) at cardiac resynchronization therapy implant, and data about heart failure hospitalization and mode of death were collected in 329 patients who were followed for a period of 3.31.9 years. Of them, 83 were hospitalized for heart failure and 83 died. Event rates for all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, noncardiac mortality, heart failure mortality, and sudden death were 25.2%, 14.9%, 10.3%, 12.2%, and 2.1%, respectively. Patients with a QLV ratio 0.70 had significantly worse event-free survival for all study end pointshazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 2.4; P=0.05 for heart failure hospitalization; hazard ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.6 to 5.5; P=0.001 for heart failure mortality; hazard ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.7; P=0.01 for cardiac mortality; and hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 3.7; P=0.01 for all-cause mortality. In multivariable analysis, QLV ratio 0.70 remained associated with all study end points. Conclusions Electric left ventricular lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients was a significant predictor of heart failure hospitalization and mortality.
引用
收藏
页码:1113 / 1121
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Effect of Right Ventricular Pacing Lead on Left Ventricular Dyssynchrony in Patients Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
    Sade, Leyla Elif
    Demir, Ozlem
    Atar, Ilyas
    Muderrisoglu, Haldun
    Ozin, Bulent
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2009, 103 (05): : 695 - 700
  • [32] Thoracoscopic Implantation of Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
    Kim, Hye Ree
    Lim, Kyunghee
    Park, Seung-Jung
    Park, Jong-Sung
    Kim, Ju Youn
    Chung, Suryeun
    Jung, Dong-Seop
    Park, Kyoung-Min
    On, Young Keun
    Kim, June Soo
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR DEVELOPMENT AND DISEASE, 2022, 9 (05)
  • [33] Left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: where and how?
    Khan, Fakhar Zaman
    Virdee, Munmohan Singh
    Fynn, Simon Patrick
    Dutka, David Paul
    EUROPACE, 2009, 11 (05): : 554 - 561
  • [34] Snare system for left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy
    Magalhaes, Andreia
    Menezes, Miguel
    Cortez-Dias, Nuno
    de Sousa, Joao
    Marques, Pedro
    REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE CARDIOLOGIA, 2015, 34 (03) : 219 - 220
  • [35] Feasibility of left ventricular endocardial lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy
    Algazzar, Alaa Solaiman
    Taha, Mohamed Osama
    Katta, Azza Ali
    El Abbady, Asmaa
    Lotfy, Heba Abdelmoteleb
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2018, 6 (02): : 53 - 55
  • [36] Left ventricular lead positioning in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Mission accomplished?
    Nguyen, Uyen Chau
    Prinzen, Frits W.
    Vernooy, Kevin
    HEART RHYTHM, 2017, 14 (09) : 1373 - 1374
  • [37] Influence of Left Ventricular Lead Site on the Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
    Camanho, Luiz E. M.
    Saad, Eduardo B.
    Slater, Charles
    Junior, Luiz Antonio O. I.
    Ladeira, Fernanda B.
    Dias, Lucas C.
    Rocha, Ricardo M.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE, 2016, 22 (08) : S71 - S71
  • [38] The quest for an optimal left ventricular lead position for cardiac resynchronization therapy
    Burri, Haran
    HEART RHYTHM, 2006, 3 (11) : 1293 - 1294
  • [39] THE ACUTE RESPONSE TO CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY IS NOT RELATED TO LEFT VENTRICULAR LEAD POSITION OR ELECTRICAL SEPARATION TIME
    Ross, Stian
    Kongsgaard, Erik
    Edvardsen, Thor
    Haland, Trine
    Skaardal, Rita
    Ove, Gammelsrud Lars
    Fischer, Trent
    Cornelussen, Richard
    Odland, Hans Henrik
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2015, 65 (10) : A448 - A448
  • [40] Biventricular paced QRS predictors of left ventricular lead locations in relation to mortality in cardiac resynchronization therapy
    Fontaine, John M.
    Gupta, Ashwani
    Franklin, Sona M.
    Kang, Christina U.
    Whigham, Latrisha A.
    JOURNAL OF ELECTROCARDIOLOGY, 2015, 48 (02) : 226 - 235