Left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Current data and potential explanations for the lack of benefit

The present article reviews the literature on image-guided cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) studies. Improved outcome to CRT has been associated with the placement of a left ventricular (LV) lead in the latest activated segment free from scar. The majority of randomized controlled trials investigating guided LV lead implantation did not show superiority over conventional implantation approaches. Several factors may contribute to this paradoxical observation, including inclusion criteria favoring patients with left bundle branch block who already respond well to conventional anatomical LV lead implantation, differences in activation wavefronts during simultaneous right ventricular and LV pacing, incorrect definition of target regions, and limitations in coronary venous anatomy that prevent access to target regions that are detected by imaging. It is imperative that exclusion of patients lacking access to target regions from these studies would lead to larger benefit of image-guided CRT.

Left Ventricular Lead Placement Guided by Reduction in QRS Area

Background: Reduction in QRS area after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with improved long-term clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the reduction in QRS area is associated with hemodynamic improvement by pacing different LV sites and can be used to guide LV lead placement. Methods: Patients with a class Ia/IIa CRT indication were prospectively included from three hospitals. Acute hemodynamic response was assessed as the relative change in maximum rate of rise of left ventricular (LV) pressure (%∆LVdP/dt_max). Change in QRS area (∆QRS area), in QRS duration (∆QRS duration), and %∆LVdP/dt_max were studied in relation to different LV pacing locations within a patient. Results: Data from 52 patients paced at 188 different LV pacing sites were investigated. Lateral LV pacing resulted in a larger %∆LVdP/dt_max than anterior or posterior pacing (p = 0.0007). A similar trend was found for ∆QRS area (p = 0.001) but not for ∆QRS duration (p = 0.23). Pacing from the proximal electrode pair resulted in a larger %∆LVdP/dt_max (p = 0.004), and ∆QRS area (p = 0.003) but not ∆QRS duration (p = 0.77). Within patients, correlation between ∆QRS area and %∆LVdP/dt_max was 0.76 (median, IQR 0.35; 0,89). Conclusion: Within patients, ∆QRS area is associated with %∆LVdP/dt_max at different LV pacing locations. Therefore, QRS area, which is an easily, noninvasively obtainable and objective parameter, may be useful to guide LV lead placement in CRT.