Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNicolson, Will
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-28T16:08:28Z
dc.date.available2022-01-28T16:08:28Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationGould, J., Claridge, S., Jackson, T., Sieniewicz, B. J., Sidhu, B. S., Porter, B., Elliott, M. K., Mehta, V., Niederer, S., Chadwick, H., Kamdar, R., Adhya, S., Patel, N., Hamid, S., Rogers, D., Nicolson, W., Chan, C. F., Whinnett, Z., Murgatroyd, F., Lambiase, P. D., … Rinaldi, C. A. (2021). Standard care vs. TRIVEntricular pacing in Heart Failure (STRIVE HF): a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial of triventricular pacing vs. conventional biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intermediate QRS left bundle branch block. Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, euab267. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab267en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/15134
dc.description.abstractAims: To determine whether triventricular (TriV) pacing is feasible and improves CRT response compared to conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and intermediate QRS prolongation (120-150 ms). Methods and results: Between October 2015 and November 2019, 99 patients were recruited from 11 UK centres. Ninety-five patients were randomized 1:1 to receive TriV or BiV pacing systems. The primary endpoint was feasibility of TriV pacing. Secondary endpoints assessed symptomatic and remodelling response to CRT. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. In the TriV group, 43/46 (93.5%) patients underwent successful implantation vs. 47/49 (95.9%) in the BiV group. Feasibility of maintaining CRT at 6 months was similar in the TriV vs. BiV group (90.0% vs. 97.7%, P = 0.191). All-cause mortality was similar between TriV vs. BiV groups (4.3% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.678). There were no significant differences in echocardiographic LV volumes or clinical composite scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups. Conclusion: Implantation of two LV leads to deliver and maintain TriV pacing at 6 months is feasible without significant complications in the majority of patients. There was no evidence that TriV pacing improves CRT response or provides additional clinical benefit to patients with LBBB and intermediate QRS prolongation and cannot be recommended in this patient group. Clinical trial registration number: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02529410.
dc.description.urihttps://academic.oup.com/europace/advance-article/doi/10.1093/europace/euab267/6433090?login=trueen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectcardiac resynchronization therapyen_US
dc.subjectmulti-lead left ventricular pacingen_US
dc.subjectmulti-site pacingen_US
dc.subjecttriventricular pacingen_US
dc.titleStandard care vs. TRIVEntricular pacing in Heart Failure (STRIVE HF): a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial of triventricular pacing vs. conventional biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intermediate QRS left bundle branch blocken_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab267en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFCD2022-01-28T16:08:28Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2022-01-28T16:08:28Z
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2021
html.description.abstractAims: To determine whether triventricular (TriV) pacing is feasible and improves CRT response compared to conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and intermediate QRS prolongation (120-150 ms). Methods and results: Between October 2015 and November 2019, 99 patients were recruited from 11 UK centres. Ninety-five patients were randomized 1:1 to receive TriV or BiV pacing systems. The primary endpoint was feasibility of TriV pacing. Secondary endpoints assessed symptomatic and remodelling response to CRT. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. In the TriV group, 43/46 (93.5%) patients underwent successful implantation vs. 47/49 (95.9%) in the BiV group. Feasibility of maintaining CRT at 6 months was similar in the TriV vs. BiV group (90.0% vs. 97.7%, P = 0.191). All-cause mortality was similar between TriV vs. BiV groups (4.3% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.678). There were no significant differences in echocardiographic LV volumes or clinical composite scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups. Conclusion: Implantation of two LV leads to deliver and maintain TriV pacing at 6 months is feasible without significant complications in the majority of patients. There was no evidence that TriV pacing improves CRT response or provides additional clinical benefit to patients with LBBB and intermediate QRS prolongation and cannot be recommended in this patient group. Clinical trial registration number: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02529410.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Gould 2021.pdf
Size:
1018.Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Main article

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record