University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York; Semmelweis University, Heart Center, Budapest, Hungary, and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Heart Rhythm. 2013 Dec;10(12):1770-7. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.08.020. Epub 2013 Aug 22.
Data on the impact of right ventricular (RV) lead location on clinical outcome and ventricular tachyarrhythmias in cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) patients are limited.
To evaluate the impact of different RV lead locations on clinical outcome in CRT-D patients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy trial.
We investigated 742 of 1089 CRT-D patients (68%) with adjudicated RV lead location enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy trial to evaluate the impact of RV lead location on cardiac events. The primary end point was heart failure or death; secondary end points included ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), or death and VT or VF alone.
Eighty-six patients had the RV lead positioned at the RV septal or right ventricular outflow tract region, combined as nonapical RV group, and 656 patients had apical RV lead location. There was no difference in the primary end point in patients with nonapical RV lead location versus those with apical RV lead location (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.80; P = .983). Echocardiographic response to CRT-D was comparable across RV lead location groups (P > .05 for left ventricular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic volume, and left atrial volume percent change). However, nonapical RV lead location was associated with significantly higher risk of VT/VF/death (HR 2.45; 95% CI 1.36-4.41; P = .003) and VT/VF alone (HR 2.52; 95% CI 1.36-4.65; P = .002), predominantly in the first year after device implantation. Results were consistent in patients with left bundle branch block.
In CRT-D patients, there is no benefit of nonapical RV lead location in clinical outcome or echocardiographic response. Moreover, nonapical RV lead location is associated with an increased risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, particularly in the first year after device implantation.
关于右心室(RV)导联位置对心脏再同步治疗除颤器(CRT-D)患者临床结局和室性心动过速/颤动(VT/VF)的影响的数据有限。
评估 Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy 试验中 CRT-D 患者不同 RV 导联位置对临床结局的影响。
我们调查了 Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy 试验中 1089 例 CRT-D 患者(68%)中有明确 RV 导联位置的 742 例患者,以评估 RV 导联位置对心脏事件的影响。主要终点为心力衰竭或死亡;次要终点包括 VT、VF 或死亡以及 VT 或 VF 单独发生。
86 例患者 RV 导联位于 RV 间隔或右心室流出道区域,联合作为非心尖 RV 组,656 例患者 RV 导联位于心尖部。非心尖 RV 导联位置患者与心尖部 RV 导联位置患者的主要终点无差异(风险比[HR]0.98;95%置信区间[CI]0.54-1.80;P=0.983)。RV 导联位置各组 CRT-D 的超声心动图反应相当(左心室舒张末期容积、左心室收缩末期容积和左心房容积百分比变化的 P 值均>0.05)。然而,非心尖 RV 导联位置与 VT/VF/死亡(HR 2.45;95%CI1.36-4.41;P=0.003)和 VT/VF 单独发生(HR 2.52;95%CI1.36-4.65;P=0.002)的风险显著增加相关,主要发生在器械植入后的第一年。左束支传导阻滞患者的结果一致。
在 CRT-D 患者中,非心尖 RV 导联位置对临床结局或超声心动图反应无获益。此外,非心尖 RV 导联位置与 VT/VF 风险增加相关,尤其是在器械植入后的第一年。