Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

A randomized double-blind comparison of biventricular versus left ventricular stimulation for cardiac resynchronization therapy: the biventricular versus left univentricular pacing with ICD back-up in heart failure patients (B-LEFT HF) trial

Giuseppe Boriani, Wolfgang Kranig, Erwan Donal, Leonardo Calo, Michela Casella, Nicolas Delarche, Ignacio Fernandez Lozano, Gerardo Ansalone, Mauro Biffi, Eric Boulogne, et al. (2010) AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL. 159(6). p.1052-U12
abstract
Background : Biventricular (BiV) stimulation is the preferred means of delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), although left ventricular (LV)-only stimulation might be as safe and effective. B-LEFT HF is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study aimed to examine whether LV-only is noninferior to BiV pacing regarding clinical and echocardiographic responses. Methods : B-LEFT HF randomly assigned 176 CRT-D recipients, in New York Heart Association class III or IV, with an LV ejection fraction <= 35% and QRS >= 130 milliseconds, to a BiV (n = 90) versus LV (n = 86) stimulation group. Clinical status and echocardiograms were analyzed at baseline and 6 months after CRT-D implant to test the noninferiority of LV-only compared with BiV stimulation. Results : The proportion of responders was in line with current literature on CRT, with improvement in heart failure composite score in 76.2% and 74.7% of patients in BiV and LV groups, respectively. Comparing LV versus BiV pacing, the small differences in response rates and corresponding 95% CI indicated that LV pacing was noninferior to BiV pacing for a series of response criteria (combination of improvement in New York Heart Association and reverse remodeling, improvement in heart failure composite score, reduction in LV end-systolic volume of at least 10%), both at intention-to-treat and at per-protocol analysis. Conclusions : Left ventricular-only pacing is noninferior to BiV pacing in a 6-month follow-up with regard to clinical and echocardiographic responses. Left ventricular pacing may be considered as a clinical alternative option to BiV pacing
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
RHYTHM-II ICD, IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR, CONDUCTION DELAY, IMPROVEMENT, HEMODYNAMICS
journal title
AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Am. Heart J.
volume
159
issue
6
pages
1052 - U12
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000278533200018
JCR category
CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
JCR impact factor
5.052 (2010)
JCR rank
13/114 (2010)
JCR quartile
1 (2010)
ISSN
0002-8703
DOI
10.1016/j.ahj.2010.03.008
language
English
UGent publication?
no
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
1113737
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1113737
date created
2011-02-01 13:57:59
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:45:26
@article{1113737,
  abstract     = {Background : Biventricular (BiV) stimulation is the preferred means of delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), although left ventricular (LV)-only stimulation might be as safe and effective. B-LEFT HF is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study aimed to examine whether LV-only is noninferior to BiV pacing regarding clinical and echocardiographic responses.
Methods : B-LEFT HF randomly assigned 176 CRT-D recipients, in New York Heart Association class III or IV, with an LV ejection fraction {\textlangle}= 35\% and QRS {\textrangle}= 130 milliseconds, to a BiV (n = 90) versus LV (n = 86) stimulation group. Clinical status and echocardiograms were analyzed at baseline and 6 months after CRT-D implant to test the noninferiority of LV-only compared with BiV stimulation.
Results :  The proportion of responders was in line with current literature on CRT, with improvement in heart failure composite score in 76.2\% and 74.7\% of patients in BiV and LV groups, respectively. Comparing LV versus BiV pacing, the small differences in response rates and corresponding 95\% CI indicated that LV pacing was noninferior to BiV pacing for a series of response criteria (combination of improvement in New York Heart Association and reverse remodeling, improvement in heart failure composite score, reduction in LV end-systolic volume of at least 10\%), both at intention-to-treat and at per-protocol analysis.
Conclusions : Left ventricular-only pacing is noninferior to BiV pacing in a 6-month follow-up with regard to clinical and echocardiographic responses. Left ventricular pacing may be considered as a clinical alternative option to BiV pacing},
  author       = {Boriani, Giuseppe and Kranig, Wolfgang and Donal, Erwan and Calo, Leonardo and Casella, Michela and Delarche, Nicolas and Lozano, Ignacio Fernandez and Ansalone, Gerardo and Biffi, Mauro and Boulogne, Eric and Leclercq, Christophe and B-LEFT HF Study group, the and De Sutter, Johan},
  issn         = {0002-8703},
  journal      = {AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL},
  keyword      = {RHYTHM-II ICD,IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR,CONDUCTION DELAY,IMPROVEMENT,HEMODYNAMICS},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {6},
  pages        = {1052--U12},
  title        = {A randomized double-blind comparison of biventricular versus left ventricular stimulation for cardiac resynchronization therapy: the biventricular versus left univentricular pacing with ICD back-up in heart failure patients (B-LEFT HF) trial},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2010.03.008},
  volume       = {159},
  year         = {2010},
}

Chicago
Boriani, Giuseppe, Wolfgang Kranig, Erwan Donal, Leonardo Calo, Michela Casella, Nicolas Delarche, Ignacio Fernandez Lozano, et al. 2010. “A Randomized Double-blind Comparison of Biventricular Versus Left Ventricular Stimulation for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: The Biventricular Versus Left Univentricular Pacing with ICD Back-up in Heart Failure Patients (B-LEFT HF) Trial.” American Heart Journal 159 (6): 1052–U12.
APA
Boriani, G., Kranig, W., Donal, E., Calo, L., Casella, M., Delarche, N., Lozano, I. F., et al. (2010). A randomized double-blind comparison of biventricular versus left ventricular stimulation for cardiac resynchronization therapy: the biventricular versus left univentricular pacing with ICD back-up in heart failure patients (B-LEFT HF) trial. AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 159(6), 1052–U12.
Vancouver
1.
Boriani G, Kranig W, Donal E, Calo L, Casella M, Delarche N, et al. A randomized double-blind comparison of biventricular versus left ventricular stimulation for cardiac resynchronization therapy: the biventricular versus left univentricular pacing with ICD back-up in heart failure patients (B-LEFT HF) trial. AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL. 2010;159(6):1052–U12.
MLA
Boriani, Giuseppe, Wolfgang Kranig, Erwan Donal, et al. “A Randomized Double-blind Comparison of Biventricular Versus Left Ventricular Stimulation for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: The Biventricular Versus Left Univentricular Pacing with ICD Back-up in Heart Failure Patients (B-LEFT HF) Trial.” AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL 159.6 (2010): 1052–U12. Print.