Chen, Lu

Introduction: Surgically implanted epicardial left ventricular (eLV) lead has been used as an alternative approach when implantation of transvenous LV (tLV) lead in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has failed. Recent literatures noted similarities in clinical response between tLV and eLV-CRT patients. However, comparison between CRT patients with ischemic (ICM) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is currently lacking in eLV-CRT patients. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that DCM patients respond better to eLV-CRT than ICM patients. Methods: Of 1038 patients who underwent tLV-CRT implantation at UCSD and Mayo Clinics between 2002 and 2013, 44 (Age 63±15, 28M) had failed tLV lead placement and received eLV-CRT. Electronic Medical Records of these patients were reviewed. NYHA class and echocardiograph were assessed before and after successful CRT implantation. Results: Following eLV-CRT implantation, improvements were noted in LVEF (26% vs. 31%, p < 0.01), NYHA class (2.9 vs. 2.3, p < 0.01) and LVESD (57mm vs. 52mm, p = 0.03) in the study cohort. In patients with DCM (n=19), the NYHA class (3.0 vs. 2.3, p = 0.01), LVEF (24% vs. 30%, p = 0.02) and LVESD (57mm vs. 52mm, p = 0.04) had significantly improved following CRT implantation compared to baseline (figures). No statistically significant changes in NYHA class, LVEF and LVESD were observed in patients with ICM (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: In this two-center study, eLV-CRT patients with DCM benefited significantly after CRT, as compared to ICM patients. Although larger scaled studies are needed, eLV-CRT may be considered a viable alternative to tLV-CRT, especially in patients with DCM.

BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can be achieved via a transvenous or epicardial route. A surgically implanted epicardial LV (eLV) lead is used after a standard transvenous LV (tLV) lead implantation has failed. However, studies of clinical outcomes in patients with eLV leads and comparisons of outcome between tLV and eLV‐CRT are sparse. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare clinical response between tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT, as well as to understand the differences within the eLV‐CRT population.MethodsForty‐four patients received eLV‐CRT following unsuccessful attempts of tLV‐CRT implantation between 2002 and 2013 at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Mayo Clinics. These patients were matched for age, gender, and etiology of cardiomyopathy in a 1:2 ratio with a cohort of patients who received tLV‐CRT during the same time period.ResultsDuring a mean follow‐up of 57 months, similar clinical outcomes and survival rate were noted between tLV and eLV‐CRT patients (all P > 0.05). Within the eLV‐CRT group, dilated cardiomyopathy patients had significant improvement in New York Heart Association class and ejection fraction (both P < 0.05), while ischemic cardiomyopathy patients did not (both P > 0.05). eLV‐CRT patients with nonanterior lead location had significantly improved survival (P < 0.001). There was also a trend for improved survival in those with nonapical lead location (P = 0.09).ConclusionIn this case‐matched two‐centered study, comparable improvements were noted in patients with tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT. Operators should target nonanterior and nonapical locations during eLV‐CRT implantation. Use of eLV‐CRT should be considered a viable alternative for CRT candidates.