No prognostic benefit of multimodality imaging-guided left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Long-term follow-up of the ImagingCRT study

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Aarhus University, the Danish Heart Foundation, Health Research Foundation of Central Denmark Region, and Gangstedfonden. Background Observational data indicate that left ventricular (LV) lead placement at the latest contracting region and separate from myocardial scar is associated with improved prognosis in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). In a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial (ImagingCRT), we tested the strategy of multimodality imaging-guided LV lead placement towards the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardial segment in CRT. Patients were included between 2011 and 2014 and allocated either to (1) imaging-guided LV lead placement using cardiac computed tomography, 99mTechnetium myocardial perfusion imaging, and speckle-tracking echocardiography (imaging group, n = 89) or to (2) routine LV lead implantation in a posterolateral region with late electrical activation (control group, n = 93). The multimodality imaging-guided strategy was found to reduce proportion of non-responders to CRT after 6 months. Impact on long-term clinical outcome is unknown. Purpose To evaluate the long-term effect of individualized multimodality imaging-guided LV lead placement compared to a routine fluoroscopic approach on the composite endpoint of death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization after CRT. Method We reviewed follow-up data until November 2020 for all 182 patients included in the ImagingCRT trial for the occurrence of HF hospitalization and all-cause death. Continuous variables are presented as median (interquartile range) or mean ± standard deviation. We used Kaplan-Meier plot and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis (unadjusted) to assess the risk of HF hospitalization and all-cause death, and used log-rank test for comparison between the two groups. Results All patients had standard CRT indication (left bundle branch block, New York Heart Association functional class II/ III/ IV 84 [46%]/ 92 [51%]/ 6 [3%], LV ejection fraction 25 ± 6%, QRS width 166 ± 22 milliseconds). Mean age was 70 ± 9 years, and 39 (21%) were female. During a median follow-up period of 6.7 years (3.3–7.9 years), the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of HF hospitalization (n = 45 [25%]) or all-cause death (n = 56 [31%]) was 60% (n = 53) in the imaging group compared with 52% (n = 48) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–1.81, p = 0.31) (Figure 1). Neither the risk of HF hospitalization (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.62–1.99, p = 0.72) or of all-cause death differed between the two groups (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.82–1.85, p = 0.32). Conclusion An individualized multimodality imaging-guided strategy targeting LV lead placement towards the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardial segment during CRT implantation did not reduce the composite outcome of HF hospitalization or all-cause death during long-term follow-up. Abstract Figure 1