Clinical outcomes of cardiac resynchronization with epicardial left ventricular lead

Background Left ventricular (LV) pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can be achieved via a transvenous or epicardial route. A surgically implanted epicardial LV (eLV) lead is used after a standard transvenous LV (tLV) lead implantation has failed. However, studies of clinical outcomes in patients with eLV leads and comparisons of outcome between tLV and eLV-CRT are sparse. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare clinical response between tLV-CRT and eLV-CRT, as well as to understand the differences within the eLV-CRT population. Methods Forty-four patients received eLV-CRT following unsuccessful attempts of tLV-CRT implantation between 2002 and 2013 at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Mayo Clinics. These patients were matched for age, gender, and etiology of cardiomyopathy in a 1:2 ratio with a cohort of patients who received tLV-CRT during the same time period. Results During a mean follow-up of 57 months, similar clinical outcomes and survival rate were noted between tLV and eLV-CRT patients (all P > 0.05). Within the eLV-CRT group, dilated cardiomyopathy patients had significant improvement in New York Heart Association class and ejection fraction (both P < 0.05), while ischemic cardiomyopathy patients did not (both P > 0.05). eLV-CRT patients with nonanterior lead location had significantly improved survival (P < 0.001). There was also a trend for improved survival in those with nonapical lead location (P = 0.09). Conclusion In this case-matched two-centered study, comparable improvements were noted in patients with tLV-CRT and eLV-CRT. Operators should target nonanterior and nonapical locations during eLV-CRT implantation. Use of eLV-CRT should be considered a viable alternative for CRT candidates.