Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta‐analysis
Abstract Background Traditionally the right ventricular (RV) pacing lead is placed in the RV apex in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). It is not clear whether nonapical placement of the RV lead is associated with a better response to CRT. We aimed to perform a meta‐analysis of all randomized...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2018-04-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Arrhythmia |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12041 |
| _version_ | 1818931911637073920 |
|---|---|
| author | Sharan Prakash Sharma Khagendra Dahal Paari Dominic Rajbir S. Sangha |
| author_facet | Sharan Prakash Sharma Khagendra Dahal Paari Dominic Rajbir S. Sangha |
| author_sort | Sharan Prakash Sharma |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Traditionally the right ventricular (RV) pacing lead is placed in the RV apex in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). It is not clear whether nonapical placement of the RV lead is associated with a better response to CRT. We aimed to perform a meta‐analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared apical and nonapical RV lead placement in CRT. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and relevant references for studies and performed meta‐analysis using random effects model. Our main outcome measures were all‐cause mortality, composite of death and heart failure hospitalization, improvement in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricle end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricle end‐systolic volume (LVESV), and adverse events. Results Seven RCTs with a total population of 1641 patients (1199 apical and 492 nonapical) were included in our meta‐analysis. There was no difference in all‐cause mortality (5% vs 4.3%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45‐1.64; P = .65; I2 = 11%) and a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization (14.2% vs 12.9%, OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.61‐1.38; P = .68; I2 = 0) between apical and nonapical groups. No difference in improvement in EF (Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.37; 95% CI: −2.75‐3.48; P = .82; I2 = 68%), change in LVEDV (WMD = 3.67; 95% CI: −4.86‐12.20; P = .40; I2 = 89%) and LVESV (WMD = −1.20; 95% CI: −4.32‐1.91; P = .45; I2 = 0) were noted between apical and nonapical groups. Proportion of patients achieving >15% improvement in EF was similar in both groups (OR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62‐1.16; P = .31; I2 = 0). Conclusion In patients with CRT, nonapical RV pacing is not associated with improved clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared with RV apical pacing. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T04:24:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-76952a0755a944cbba1c4e8e34ef0d55 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1880-4276 1883-2148 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T04:24:07Z |
| publishDate | 2018-04-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Arrhythmia |
| spelling | doaj.art-76952a0755a944cbba1c4e8e34ef0d552022-12-21T19:53:34ZengWileyJournal of Arrhythmia1880-42761883-21482018-04-0134218519410.1002/joa3.12041Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta‐analysisSharan Prakash Sharma0Khagendra Dahal1Paari Dominic2Rajbir S. Sangha3LRGHealthcare University of New England Laconia NH USADivision of Cardiology Louisiana State University Health Science Center Shreveport LA USADivision of Cardiology Louisiana State University Health Science Center Shreveport LA USAClinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Section of Cardiology Dartmouth‐Hitchcock Medical Center Lebanon NH USAAbstract Background Traditionally the right ventricular (RV) pacing lead is placed in the RV apex in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). It is not clear whether nonapical placement of the RV lead is associated with a better response to CRT. We aimed to perform a meta‐analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared apical and nonapical RV lead placement in CRT. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and relevant references for studies and performed meta‐analysis using random effects model. Our main outcome measures were all‐cause mortality, composite of death and heart failure hospitalization, improvement in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricle end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricle end‐systolic volume (LVESV), and adverse events. Results Seven RCTs with a total population of 1641 patients (1199 apical and 492 nonapical) were included in our meta‐analysis. There was no difference in all‐cause mortality (5% vs 4.3%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45‐1.64; P = .65; I2 = 11%) and a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization (14.2% vs 12.9%, OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.61‐1.38; P = .68; I2 = 0) between apical and nonapical groups. No difference in improvement in EF (Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.37; 95% CI: −2.75‐3.48; P = .82; I2 = 68%), change in LVEDV (WMD = 3.67; 95% CI: −4.86‐12.20; P = .40; I2 = 89%) and LVESV (WMD = −1.20; 95% CI: −4.32‐1.91; P = .45; I2 = 0) were noted between apical and nonapical groups. Proportion of patients achieving >15% improvement in EF was similar in both groups (OR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62‐1.16; P = .31; I2 = 0). Conclusion In patients with CRT, nonapical RV pacing is not associated with improved clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared with RV apical pacing.https://doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12041apical pacingcardiac resynchronization therapynonapical pacingright ventricular pacing |
| spellingShingle | Sharan Prakash Sharma Khagendra Dahal Paari Dominic Rajbir S. Sangha Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta‐analysis Journal of Arrhythmia apical pacing cardiac resynchronization therapy nonapical pacing right ventricular pacing |
| title | Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta‐analysis |
| title_full | Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta‐analysis |
| title_fullStr | Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta‐analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta‐analysis |
| title_short | Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta‐analysis |
| title_sort | clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in crt a meta analysis |
| topic | apical pacing cardiac resynchronization therapy nonapical pacing right ventricular pacing |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12041 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sharanprakashsharma clinicalandechocardiographicresponseofapicalvsnonapicalrightventricularleadpositionincrtametaanalysis AT khagendradahal clinicalandechocardiographicresponseofapicalvsnonapicalrightventricularleadpositionincrtametaanalysis AT paaridominic clinicalandechocardiographicresponseofapicalvsnonapicalrightventricularleadpositionincrtametaanalysis AT rajbirssangha clinicalandechocardiographicresponseofapicalvsnonapicalrightventricularleadpositionincrtametaanalysis |