Conduction System Vs Surgical Left Ventricular Epicardial Pacing For Coronary Sinus Lead Failure

Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Clinical Trial

Official title:

Conduction System Vs Surgical Left Ventricular Epicardial Pacing For Coronary Sinus Lead Failure

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Not yet recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT06342492
• Other study ID #: KCHRRF_CS Lead Failure_0025
• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Start date: April 2024
• Est. completion date: December 2024

Study information

• Verified date: February 2024
• Source: Kansas City Heart Rhythm Research Foundation
• Contact: Donita Atkins
• Phone: 816-651-1969
• Email: datkins[@]kchrf.com
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

This a single-center, retrospective, observational study of patients that undergo coronary sinus(CS) lead revision, comparing epicardial lead placement to coronary sinus pacing(CSP) in those that had lead failure.

Description:

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator(CRT-D) improves quality of life, functionality, and even mortality for select patients with severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). It traditionally consists of three leads placed endovascularly into the right atrium, right ventricle, and left ventricle (LV) [typically placed into the CS], known as biventricular pacing resynchronization (BVP-CRT), respectively, from which electrical stimulation enables improved cardiac synchrony. Nonetheless, the placement of a CRT-D is not without risks. Lead-related complication is high and CRT-D implantation fails in up to 30% of patients due to lead placement alone. Epicardial lead placement and CSP have been deemed viable alternatives to CRT-D. It has even been shown to be options in patients that fail conventional BVP-CRT. This is primarily due to increased accuracy, decreased complications, and even durability. However, guidelines for decision between a transthoracic approach and CSP is unclear, even more so after lead failure. Instead, this decision is currently individualized to the patient. There is a lack of prospective and head-to-head data between the two, and this study is aimed to compare transthoracic LV epicardial lead placement and CSP in patients with lead failure after BVP-CRT.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Enrollment: 100
• Est. completion date: December 2024
• Est. primary completion date: October 2024
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• All patients older than 18 years of age
• Patients with HFrEF that underwent BVP-CRT
• Experienced CS lead failure, whether initial or recurrent, subsequently replaced with transthoracic epicardial lead placement or CSP
• Underwent Medtronic, Boston Scientific, or Abbott lead placement

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patients younger than 18 years of age
• Transthoracic epicardial lead placement or CSP performed as the initial approach or for other reasons than lead replacement
• Those for which CRT no longer provides symptom relief or mortality benefit.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Heart Failure
• Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Intervention

Other:
• Coronary Sinus Lead Revision
Coronary Sinus Lead Revision

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Centerpoint Medical Center	Independence	Missouri
United States	Centerpoint Medical Center Clinic	Independence	Missouri
United States	Research Medical Center	Kansas City	Missouri
United States	Research Medical Center Clinic	Kansas City	Missouri
United States	Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute - Roe Clinic	Overland Park	Kansas
United States	Menorah Medical Center	Overland Park	Kansas
United States	Overland Park Regional Medical Center	Overland Park	Kansas

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Kansas City Heart Rhythm Research Foundation

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (15)

Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, Delurgio DB, Leon AR, Loh E, Kocovic DZ, Packer M, Clavell AL, Hayes DL, Ellestad M, Trupp RJ, Underwood J, Pickering F, Truex C, McAtee P, Messenger J; MIRACLE Study Group. Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002 Jun 13;346(24):1845-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa013168. — View Citation

Ahsan SY, Saberwal B, Lambiase PD, Chaubey S, Segal OR, Gopalamurugan AB, McCready J, Rogers DP, Lowe MD, Chow AW. An 8-year single-centre experience of cardiac resynchronisation therapy: procedural success, early and late complications, and left ventricular lead performance. Europace. 2013 May;15(5):711-7. doi: 10.1093/europace/eus401. Epub 2013 Jan 12. — View Citation

Alonso C, Leclercq C, d'Allonnes FR, Pavin D, Victor F, Mabo P, Daubert JC. Six year experience of transvenous left ventricular lead implantation for permanent biventricular pacing in patients with advanced heart failure: technical aspects. Heart. 2001 Oct;86(4):405-10. doi: 10.1136/heart.86.4.405. — View Citation

Burger H, Pecha S, Hakmi S, Opalka B, Schoenburg M, Ziegelhoeffer T. Five-year follow-up of transvenous and epicardial left ventricular leads: experience with more than 1000 leads. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020 Jan 1;30(1):74-80. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivz239. — View Citation

Butter C, Georgi C, Stockburger M. Optimal CRT Implantation-Where and How To Place the Left-Ventricular Lead? Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2021 Oct;18(5):329-344. doi: 10.1007/s11897-021-00528-9. Epub 2021 Sep 8. — View Citation

Chen X, Ye Y, Wang Z, Jin Q, Qiu Z, Wang J, Qin S, Bai J, Wang W, Liang Y, Chen H, Sheng X, Gao F, Zhao X, Fu G, Ellenbogen KA, Su Y, Ge J. Cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing vs. optimized biventricular pacing with adaptive algorithm in heart failure with left bundle branch block: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study. Europace. 2022 May 3;24(5):807-816. doi: 10.1093/europace/euab249. — View Citation

Daubert C, Behar N, Martins RP, Mabo P, Leclercq C. Avoiding non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a practical guide. Eur Heart J. 2017 May 14;38(19):1463-1472. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw270. — View Citation

Kim HR, Lim K, Park SJ, Park JS, Kim JY, Chung S, Jung DS, Park KM, On YK, Kim JS. Thoracoscopic Implantation of Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2022 May 16;9(5):160. doi: 10.3390/jcdd9050160. — View Citation

Mair H, Sachweh J, Meuris B, Nollert G, Schmoeckel M, Schuetz A, Reichart B, Daebritz S. Surgical epicardial left ventricular lead versus coronary sinus lead placement in biventricular pacing. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005 Feb;27(2):235-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.09.029. — View Citation

Navia JL, Atik FA, Grimm RA, Garcia M, Vega PR, Myhre U, Starling RC, Wilkoff BL, Martin D, Houghtaling PL, Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM. Minimally invasive left ventricular epicardial lead placement: surgical techniques for heart failure resynchronization therapy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005 May;79(5):1536-44; discussion 1536-44. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.10.041. — View Citation

Pothineni NVK, Gondi S, Cherian T, Kovelamudi S, Schaller RD, Lakkireddy D, Gopinathannair R, Deshmukh A. Complications of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Comparison of Safety Outcomes from Real-world Studies and Clinical Trials. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2022 Aug 15;13(8):5121-5125. doi: 10.19102/icrm.2022.130805. eCollection 2022 Aug. — View Citation

Pujol-Lopez M, Jimenez-Arjona R, Garre P, Guasch E, Borras R, Doltra A, Ferro E, Garcia-Ribas C, Niebla M, Carro E, Puente JL, Vazquez-Calvo S, Invers-Rubio E, Roca-Luque I, Castel MA, Arbelo E, Sitges M, Brugada J, Tolosana JM, Mont L. Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing in Heart Failure and Wide QRS Patients: LEVEL-AT Trial. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 Nov;8(11):1431-1445. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2022.08.001. Epub 2022 Oct 26. — View Citation

Sharma PS, Vijayaraman P. Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2021 Apr;10(1):51-58. doi: 10.15420/aer.2020.45. — View Citation

Vijayaraman P, Herweg B, Verma A, Sharma PS, Batul SA, Ponnusamy SS, Schaller RD, Cano O, Molina-Lerma M, Curila K, Huybrechts W, Wilson DR, Rademakers LM, Sreekumar P, Upadhyay G, Vernooy K, Subzposh FA, Huang W, Jastrzebski M, Ellenbogen KA. Rescue left bundle branch area pacing in coronary venous lead failure or nonresponse to biventricular pacing: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group. Heart Rhythm. 2022 Aug;19(8):1272-1280. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.04.024. Epub 2022 Apr 30. — View Citation

Wu S, Su L, Vijayaraman P, Zheng R, Cai M, Xu L, Shi R, Huang Z, Whinnett ZI, Huang W. Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Nonrandomized On-Treatment Comparison With His Bundle Pacing and Biventricular Pacing. Can J Cardiol. 2021 Feb;37(2):319-328. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2020.04.037. Epub 2020 May 7. — View Citation

* Note: There are 15 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Need for lead revision	Compare the need for lead revision between conduction system pacing (CSP) and transthoracic left ventricular (LV) epicardial pacing approach	Procedure Day
Secondary	Electrocardiography characteristics - QRS Interval	Compare electrocardiography characteristics - QRS Interval measured in seconds between conduction system pacing (CSP) and transthoracic left ventricular (LV) epicardial pacing approach	Procedure Day