Lateral left ventricular lead position is superior to posterior position in long‐term outcome of patients who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy

Abstract

Abstract Aims Preferring side branch of coronary sinus during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation has been empirical due to the limited data on the association of left ventricular (LV) lead position and long‐term clinical outcome. We evaluated the long‐term all‐cause mortality by LV lead non‐apical positions and further characterized them by interlead electrical delay (IED). Methods and results In our retrospective database, 2087 patients who underwent CRT implantation were registered between 2000 and 2018. Those with non‐apical LV lead locations were classified into anterior (n = 108), posterior (n = 643), and lateral (n = 1336) groups. All‐cause mortality was assessed by Kaplan–Meier and Cox analyses. Echocardiographic response was measured 6 months after CRT implantation. During the median follow‐up time of 3.7 years, 1150 (55.1%) patients died—710 (53.1%) with lateral, 78 (72.2%) with anterior, and 362 (56.3%) with posterior positions. When we investigated the risk of all‐cause mortality, there was a significantly lower rate of death in patients with lateral LV lead location when compared with those with an anterior (P < 0.01) or posterior (P < 0.01) position. Multivariate analysis after adjustment for relevant clinical covariates such as age, sex, ischaemic aetiology, left bundle branch block morphology, atrial fibrillation, and device type revealed consistent results that lateral position is associated with a significant risk reduction of all‐cause mortality when compared with anterior [hazard ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55–0.87; P < 0.01] or posterior (hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.74–0.96; P < 0.01) position. When echocardiographic response was evaluated within the lateral group, patients with an IED longer than 110 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.63; 95% CI 0.53–0.73; P = 0.012) showed 2.1 times higher odds of improvement in echocardiographic response 6 months after the implantation. Conclusions In this study, we proved in a real‐world patient population that after CRT implantation, lateral LV lead location was associated with long‐term mortality benefit and is superior to both anterior and posterior positions. Moreover, patients with this position showed the greatest echocardiographic response over 110 ms IED.

Keywords

• Left ventricular lead position
• Lateral left ventricular lead
• CRT long‐term outcome
• Interlead electrical delay
• RV‐LV delay