We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical impact of an additional left ventricular lead in cardiac resynchronization therapy nonresponders: The V 3 trial.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment of heart failure (HF), but is limited by a substantial proportion of nonresponders. We hypothesized that adding a second left ventricular (LV) lead to deliver a triple-site CRT (V3 CRT) may improve clinical status of CRT nonresponders.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the feasibility and safety of adding a second LV lead to CRT nonresponders and its clinical impact.
METHODS: Eighty-four recipients of a CRT system and considered as nonresponders as per clinical composite score (CCS) were enrolled in this multicenter study. They were randomized to the V3 arm (implantation of an additional LV lead; n = 43) or control arm (no change; n = 41). Implant success rate, incidence of severe adverse events, CCS, and secondary clinical and echocardiographic end points were evaluated at 12 and 24 months.
RESULTS: Positioning of a second LV lead was successful at first (40 of 44 - 90.9%) or second (4 of 44 - 9.09%) attempt. The perioperative complication rate (infection, system explant, pneumothorax, and hematoma) was high (procedures or system-related complications for 9 patients- 20.4%). After 24 months, 35 systems (79.5%) were working properly. The multinomial logistic regression model showed that V3 treatment had no significant influence (P = .27) on the CCS, number of HF hospitalizations, time to first HF hospitalization, New York Heart Association class, and LV ejection fraction at 12 and 24 months.
CONCLUSION: Although addition of a second LV lead in CRT nonresponders is feasible with a high success rate, this approach is associated with a significant rate of severe adverse events and does not provide significant long-term clinical benefits (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier No. NCT01059175).
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the feasibility and safety of adding a second LV lead to CRT nonresponders and its clinical impact.
METHODS: Eighty-four recipients of a CRT system and considered as nonresponders as per clinical composite score (CCS) were enrolled in this multicenter study. They were randomized to the V3 arm (implantation of an additional LV lead; n = 43) or control arm (no change; n = 41). Implant success rate, incidence of severe adverse events, CCS, and secondary clinical and echocardiographic end points were evaluated at 12 and 24 months.
RESULTS: Positioning of a second LV lead was successful at first (40 of 44 - 90.9%) or second (4 of 44 - 9.09%) attempt. The perioperative complication rate (infection, system explant, pneumothorax, and hematoma) was high (procedures or system-related complications for 9 patients- 20.4%). After 24 months, 35 systems (79.5%) were working properly. The multinomial logistic regression model showed that V3 treatment had no significant influence (P = .27) on the CCS, number of HF hospitalizations, time to first HF hospitalization, New York Heart Association class, and LV ejection fraction at 12 and 24 months.
CONCLUSION: Although addition of a second LV lead in CRT nonresponders is feasible with a high success rate, this approach is associated with a significant rate of severe adverse events and does not provide significant long-term clinical benefits (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier No. NCT01059175).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app