Cardiac computed tomography-verified right ventricular lead position and outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy

Purpose To evaluate the association between different right ventricular (RV) lead positions as assessed by cardiac computed tomography (CT) and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods We reviewed patient records of all 278 patients included in two randomized controlled trials (ImagingCRT and ElectroCRT) for occurrence of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or all-cause death (primary endpoint) during long-term follow-up. Outcomes were compared between RV lead positions using adjusted Cox regression analysis. Six months after CRT implantation, we estimated left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling by measuring LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes by echocardiography. Changes from baseline to 6 months follow-up were compared between RV lead positions. Device-related complications were recorded at 6-month follow-up. Results During median (interquartile range) follow-up of 4.7 (2.9–7.1) years, the risk of meeting the primary endpoint was similar for patients with non-apical vs. apical RV lead position (adjusted hazard ratio ( HR ) 0.78, 95% confidence interval ( CI ) 0.54–1.12, p = 0.17) and free wall vs. septal RV lead position (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72–1.47, p = 0.86). Changes in LV ejection fraction and dimensions were similar with the different RV lead positions. We observed no differences in device-related complications relative to the RV lead position. Conclusions In patients receiving CRT, the risk of HF hospitalization or all-cause death during long-term follow-up, and LV remodeling and incidence of device-related complications after 6 months are not associated with different anatomical RV lead position as assessed by cardiac CT.