| Title |
Right ventricular lead location, right-left ventricular lead interaction, and long-term outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10840-018-0332-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Usama A. Daimee, Helmut U. Klein, Michael C. Giudici, Wojciech Zareba, Scott McNitt, Bronislava Polonsky, Arthur J. Moss, Valentina Kutyifa |
| Abstract |
The effects of right ventricular (RV) lead location and the combination of RV and left ventricular (LV) lead locations on long-term outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) are not well understood. Our cohort consisted of 743 CRT-D patients from MADIT-CRT. We evaluated long-term death and combined heart failure or death (HF/death) in patients with non-apical RV vs. apical RV leads. We further assessed these long-term outcomes based on the combination of RV and LV leads, termed "RV-LV lead interaction." Patients with non-apical RV and apical LV leads and those with apical RV and non-apical LV leads were described to have "discordant RV and LV leads." Patients with RV and LV leads that were both non-apical or both apical were defined to have "concordant RV and LV leads." There were no differences in death and HF/death between patients with non-apical RV vs. apical RV leads. However, patients with non-apical RV and apical LV leads had higher mortality risk, relative to those with apical RV and non-apical LV leads (HR = 4.06, 95% CI 1.73-9.53, p = 0.001) as well as those with both leads in the non-apical (HR = 3.82, 95% CI 1.33-10.98, p = 0.013) or apical (HR = 3.40, 95% CI 1.24-9.37, p = 0.018) positions. There was no difference in HF/death by RV-LV lead sub-groups. Among CRT-D patients, long-term outcomes were similar for non-apical RV and apical RV leads. However, mortality risk was increased with discordant RV and LV leads, when a non-apical RV lead was combined with an apical LV lead. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 46% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 42% |