Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Electrocardiogram Belt guidance for left ventricular lead placement and biventricular pacing optimization
Authors' conclusion
The findings of the present study do not support EBS-guided therapy for CRT management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with HF less likely to respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (ischemic cardiomyopathy, non-left bundle branch block, or QRS duration <150 ms)
- Participants
- 408 patients
- Comparison
- ECG Belt system (EBS)-guided CRT implantation and programming vs standard CRT care
- Primary endpoint
- Relative change in LV end-systolic volume from baseline
- Follow-up
- 6 months postimplantation
Methodological detailsprospective, multicentre (Europe and North America)
- Prospective
- Multicentre (Europe and North America)
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Relative change in LV end-systolic volume · 6 months
- Both groups had a mean improvement in LV end-systolic volume; no significant difference in relative change from baseline
- P = .26
Further findings
- Higher baseline SD of activation times associated with greater LV reverse remodeling
- Improvement in electrical dyssynchrony did not correlate with extent of reverse remodeling
Original publication
Electrocardiogram Belt guidance for left ventricular lead placement and biventricular pacing optimization. Heart Rhythm. Published 25 November 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →