0218: Comparison of transvenous versus surgical implantation of left ventricular lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy

BackgroundApproximately 1% of the adult population have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Since the 1980s, therapeutic advances in this field have been significant, particularly through the development of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, transvenous implantation of the left ventricular (LV) lead is unsuccessful in 5 - 15% of patients. For this group, surgical placement of LV lead is an alternative.ObjectiveCompare the effects of transvenous versus surgical implantation of the LV lead in CRT.MethodsWe included 100 consecutive patients who had received CRT in our centre between January 2008 and July 2012 in a retrospective observational study. Twelve patients who had failed transvenous implantation of LV lead had a surgical placement.ResultsPopulation characteristics were a mean age of 66±11 years, 16% female, New York Heart Association class 2.9±0.5, 45% ischemic cardiomyopathy, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 24±7%, QRS width 165±23ms. There were no major difference in preoperative variables between two groups except sex category (12.5% female in transvenous group versus 42% in surgical group, p=0.022). During a mean follow-up of 508±429 days, the improvements seen in all variables showed no difference between the groups. At six months, 77% of patients had improved at least one class of their dyspnea stage, LVEF improved significantly (24±7% versus 36±10% at six months).ConclusionsSurgical placement of LV lead offers similar benefits as compared with transvenous implantation