Imperial College London
Alternate

DrZacharyWhinnett

Faculty of Medicine, National Heart & Lung Institute

Reader in Cardiac Electrophysiology
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

z.whinnett

 
 
//

Location

 

South- NHLI Cardiovascular ScienceBlock B Hammersmith HospitalHammersmith Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Gould:2021:europace/euab267,
author = {Gould, J and Claridge, S and Jackson, T and Sieniewicz, BJ and Sidhu, BS and Porter, B and Elliott, MK and Mehta, V and Niederer, S and Chadwick, H and Kamdar, R and Adhya, S and Patel, N and Hamid, S and Rogers, D and Nicolson, W and Chan, CF and Whinnett, Z and Murgatroyd, F and Lambiase, PD and Rinaldi, CA},
doi = {europace/euab267},
journal = {Europace},
pages = {796--806},
title = {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},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab267},
volume = {24},
year = {2021}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - AimsTo 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 resultsBetween 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.ConclusionImplantation 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 numberClinicaltrials.gov: NCT02529410.
AU  - Gould,J
AU  - Claridge,S
AU  - Jackson,T
AU  - Sieniewicz,BJ
AU  - Sidhu,BS
AU  - Porter,B
AU  - Elliott,MK
AU  - Mehta,V
AU  - Niederer,S
AU  - Chadwick,H
AU  - Kamdar,R
AU  - Adhya,S
AU  - Patel,N
AU  - Hamid,S
AU  - Rogers,D
AU  - Nicolson,W
AU  - Chan,CF
AU  - Whinnett,Z
AU  - Murgatroyd,F
AU  - Lambiase,PD
AU  - Rinaldi,CA
DO  - europace/euab267
EP  - 806
PY  - 2021///
SN  - 1099-5129
SP  - 796
TI  - 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
T2  - Europace
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab267
UR  - https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000790151200001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=a2bf6146997ec60c407a63945d4e92bb
UR  - https://academic.oup.com/europace/article/24/5/796/6433090
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/103122
VL  - 24
ER  -
Download