Introduction Lateral or posteriolateral coronary vein has been considered the optimal location of left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). However, the long-term clinical outcomes of CRT based on LV lead location have not been sufficiently addressed.
Methods Seven hundred and eighteen CRT-P/CRT-D recipients from Jan 2002 to Dec 2008 were studied. At the CRT implant, the LV lead placement was prioritised as posterolateral/lateral (PL, 50%), anterior lateral (AL, 31%), anterior interventricular (AI, 12%) or middle cardiac veins (MC, 7%). NYHA class and echocardiography were assessed before and after CRT. Clinical outcomes of CRT were compared among 4 LV lead locations.
Results Patient baseline demographics, except the gender (P=0.03), were similar among four groups. After CRT, the improvement in NYHA class, LV ejection fraction (EF), and LV diastolic diameter were significantly improved comparably across four LV lead locations (table). The increase in LVEF by >5% were 46%, 47%, 41% and 42% in PL, AL, AI and MC groups (p=0.87).
Conclusion The present study suggests that LV lead positioned in the alternative coronary veins, other than posteriolateral or lateral location, achieve comparable benefit in improvement of HF symptoms, and LV function after CRT.