Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: an acute electrical and haemodynamic within-patient comparison of left bundle branch area, His bundle, and biventricular pacing

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP -35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP -19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (-46 ± 15 ms, -36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP -43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP -45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP -13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

HBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response.

Chronically altered ventricular activation causes pro-arrhythmic cardiac electrical remodelling in the chronic AV block dog model

AIMS

Altered ventricular activation (AVA) causes intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (MD) and impedes contraction, promoting pro-arrhythmic electrical remodelling in the chronic atrioventricular block (CAVB) dog. We aimed to study arrhythmogenic and electromechanical outcomes of different degrees of AVA.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Following atrioventricular block, AVA was established through idioventricular rhythm (IVR; n = 29), right ventricular apex (RVA; n = 12) pacing or biventricular pacing [cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); n = 10]. After ≥3 weeks of bradycardic remodelling, Torsade de Pointes arrhythmia (TdP) inducibility, defined as ≥3 TdP/10 min, was tested with specific IKr-blocker dofetilide (25 μg/kg/5 min). Mechanical dyssynchrony was assessed by echocardiography as time-to-peak (TTP) of left ventricular (LV) free-wall minus septum (ΔTTP). Electrical intraventricular dyssynchrony was assessed as slope of regression line correlating intraventricular LV activation time (AT) and activation recovery interval (ARI). Under sinus rhythm, contraction occurred synchronous (ΔTTP: -8.6 ± 28.9 ms), and latest activated regions seemingly had slightly longer repolarization (AT-ARI slope: -0.4). Acute AV block increased MD in all groups, but following ≥3 weeks of remodelling IVR animals became significantly more TdP inducible (19/29 IVR vs. 5/12 RVA and 2/10 CRT, both P < 0.05 vs. IVR). After chronic AVA, intraventricular MD was lowest in CRT animals (ΔTTP: -8.5 ± 31.2 vs. 55.80 ± 20.0 and 82.7 ± 106.2 ms in CRT, IVR, and RVA, respectively, P < 0.05 RVA vs. CRT). Although dofetilide steepened negative AT-ARI slope in all groups, this heterogeneity in dofetilide-induced ARI prolongation seemed least pronounced in CRT animals (slope to -0.8, -3.2 and -4.5 in CRT, IVR and RVA, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Severity of intraventricular MD affects the extent of electrical remodelling and pro-arrhythmic outcome in the CAVB dog model.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and bundle branch block or indication for pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a safe and more physiological alternative to BVP.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

This observational study included consecutive patients with LVEF ≤35% and class I or II indications for CRT who underwent successful BVP or CSP at 2 major health care systems. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included subgroup analysis in left bundle branch block as well as individual endpoints of death and HFH.

RESULTS

A total of 477 patients (32% female) met inclusion criteria (BVP 219; CSP 258 [HBP 87, LBBAP 171]). Mean age was 72 ± 12 years, and mean LVEF was 26% ± 6%. Comorbidities included hypertension 70%, diabetes mellitus 45%, and coronary artery disease 52%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower than BVP (133 ± 21 ms vs 153 ± 24 ms; P <.001). LVEF improved in both groups during mean follow-up of 27 ± 12 months and was greater after CSP compared to BVP (39.7% ± 13% vs 33.1% ± 12%; P <.001). Primary outcome of death or HFH was significantly lower with CSP vs BVP (28.3% vs 38.4%; hazard ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval 1.082-2.087; P = .013).

CONCLUSION

CSP improved clinical outcomes compared to BVP in this large cohort of patients with indications for CRT.

Physiologic Pacing Targeting the His Bundle and Left Bundle Branch: a Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a means to preserve or restore physiological ventricular activation via pacing at the His bundle or at more distal targets in the conduction system, including the left bundle branch area. This review examines strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of CSP performed via these approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

His bundle pacing (HBP) has been successfully utilized for standard bradyarrhythmia indications and for QRS correction among patients receiving devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Limitations of HBP pacing have included implant complexity and rising pacing thresholds over time. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) appears to deliver similar physiological benefits with shorter implant times and more stable thresholds. More recently, hybrid systems utilizing HBP or LBBAP in combination with left ventricular leads have been used to treat heart failure (HF) patients, and may be useful in multilevel or mixed conduction blocks. There is growing interest in CSP for bradycardia and HF indications, although high quality data with randomized controlled trials are needed to help guide future treatment paradigms.

Anatomy of the coronary sinus with regard to cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation

Knowledge of the coronary sinus (CS) anatomy is crucial for implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Obstacles to CS entry, such as the Eustachian ridge and Thebesian valve, as well as within the CS, such as Vieussen’s valve and the vein of Marshall, are important to understand and differentiate during implantation or to identify earlier by imaging. Anatomic knowledge is mandatory to select the most suitable side branch for lead implantation. Modern tools and techniques almost always enable other anatomic problems, such as tortuous, small, short, or overly straight side branches, to also be overcome.

What Have We Learned in the Last 20 Years About CRT Non-Responders?

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become well established in the treatment of heart failure, the management of patients who do not respond after CRT remains a key challenge. This review will summarize what we have learned about non-responders over the last 20 years and discuss methods for optimizing response, including the introduction of novel therapies.

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

AIMS

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB).

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P < 0.001). Higher absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and △LVEF was also achieved in LBBP-CRT than BVP-aCRT at 6-month (47.58 ± 12.02% vs. 41.24 ± 10.56%, P = 0.008; 18.52 ± 13.19% vs. 12.89 ± 9.73%, P = 0.020) and 1-year follow-up (49.10 ± 10.43% vs. 43.62 ± 11.33%, P = 0.021; 20.90 ± 11.80% vs. 15.20 ± 9.98%, P = 0.015, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in response rate between two groups while higher super-response rate was observed in LBBP-CRT as compared to BVP-aCRT at 6 months (53.06% vs. 36.59%, P = 0.016) and 12 months (61.22% vs. 39.22%, P = 0.028) during follow-up. The pacing threshold was lower in LBBP-CRT at implant and during 1-year follow-up (both P < 0.001). Procedure-related complications and adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different in two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.

Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has developed in an effort to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes between LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BIVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB). Consecutive patients with HF and CLBBB requiring CRT received either LBBAP or BIVP were recruited at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from February 2018 to May 2019. We assessed their implant parameters, electrocardiogram (ECG), clinical outcomes at implant and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Forty-one patients recruited including 21 for LBBAP and 20 for BIVP. Mean follow-up duration was 23.71 ± 4.44 months. LBBAP produced lower pacing thresholds, shorter procedure time and fluoroscopy duration compared to BIVP. The QRS duration was significantly narrower after LBBAP than BIVP (129.29 ± 31.46 vs. 156.85 ± 26.37 ms, p = 0.005). Notably, both LBBAP and BIVP significantly improved LVEF, LVEDD, NYHA class, and BNP compared with baseline. However, LBBAP significantly lowered BNP compared with BIVP (416.69 ± 411.39 vs. 96.07 ± 788.71 pg/ml, p = 0.007) from baseline to 24-month follow-up. Moreover, patients who received LBBAP exhibited lower number of hospitalizations than those in the BIVP group (p = 0.019). In addition, we found that patients with moderately prolonged left ventricular activation time (LVAT) and QRS notching in limb leads in baseline ECG respond better to LBBAP for CLBBB correction. LBBAP might be a relative safe and effective resynchronization therapy and as a supplement to BIVP for patients with HF and CLBBB.

Junctional AV ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (JAVA-CRT): results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial pilot program

Introduction

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes in sinus rhythm, but the data in atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. Atrio-ventricular junctional ablation (AVJA) has been proposed as a remedy. The objective was to test if AVJA results in LV end-systolic volume (ESV) reduction ≥ 15% from baseline to 6 months.

Methods

The trial was a prospective multicenter randomized trial in 26 patients with permanent AF who were randomized 1:1 to CRT-D with or without AVJA.

Results

LVESV improved similarly by at least 15% in 5/10 (50%) in the CRT-D-only arm and in 6/12 (50%) in the AVJA + CRT-D arm (OR = 1.00 [0.14, 7.21], p = 1.00). In the CRT-D-only arm, the median 6-month improvement in LVEF was 9.2%, not different from the AVJA + CRT-D arm, 8.2%. When both groups were combined, a significant increase in LVEF was observed (25.4% at baseline vs 36.2% at 6 months, p = 0.002). NYHA class from baseline to 6 months for all patients combined improved 1 class in 15 of 24 (62.5%), whereas 9 remained in the same class and 0 degraded to a worse class.

Conclusion

In patients with permanent AF, reduced LVEF, and broad QRS who were eligible for CRT, there was insufficient evidence that AVJA improved echocardiographic or clinical outcomes; the results should be interpreted in light of a smaller than planned sample size. CRT, however, seemed to be effective in the combined study cohort overall, suggesting that CRT can be reasonably deployed in patients with AF.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02946853.

Pacing therapy for atrioventricular dromotropathy: a combined computational-experimental-clinical study

AIMS

Investigate haemodynamic effects, and their mechanisms, of restoring atrioventricular (AV)-coupling using pacemaker therapy in normal and failing hearts in a combined computational-experimental-clinical study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Computer simulations were performed in the CircAdapt model of the normal and failing human heart and circulation. Experiments were performed in a porcine model of AV dromotropathy. In a proof-of-principle clinical study, left ventricular (LV) pressure and volume were measured in 22 heart failure (HF) patients (LV ejection fraction <35%) with prolonged PR interval (>230 ms) and narrow or non-left bundle branch block QRS complex. Computer simulations and animal studies in normal hearts showed that restoring of AV-coupling with unchanged ventricular activation sequence significantly increased LV filling, mean arterial pressure, and cardiac output by 10-15%. In computer simulations of failing hearts and in HF patients, reducing PR interval by biventricular (BiV) pacing (patients: from 300 ± 61 to 137 ± 30 ms) resulted in significant increases in LV stroke volume and stroke work (patients: 34 ± 40% and 26 ± 31%, respectively). However, worsening of ventricular dyssynchrony by using right ventricular (RV) pacing abrogated the benefit of restoring AV-coupling. In model simulations, animals and patients, the increase of LV filling and associated improvement of LV pump function coincided with both larger mitral inflow (E- and A-wave area) and reduction of diastolic mitral regurgitation.

CONCLUSION

Restoration of AV-coupling by BiV pacing in normal and failing hearts with prolonged AV conduction leads to considerable haemodynamic improvement. These results indicate that BiV or physiological pacing, but not RV pacing, may improve cardiac function in patients with HF and prolonged PR interval.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for patients requiring ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and RVP among patients undergoing pacemaker implantation METHODS: This observational registry included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for bradycardia indications between April 2018 and October 2020. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), or upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with a prespecified burden of ventricular pacing and individual outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 703 patients met inclusion criteria (321 LBBAP and 382 RVP). QRS duration during LBBAP was similar to baseline (121 ± 23 ms vs 117 ± 30 ms; P = .302) and was narrower compared to RVP (121 ± 23 ms vs 156 ± 27 ms; P <.001). The primary composite outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (10.0%) compared to RVP (23.3%) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95%T confidence interval [CI] 0.306-0.695; P <.001). Among patients with ventricular pacing burden >20%, LBBAP was associated with significant reduction in the primary outcome compared to RVP (8.4% vs 26.1%; HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.187-0.540; P <.001). LBBAP was also associated with significant reduction in mortality (7.8% vs 15%; HR 0.59; P = .03) and HFH (3.7% vs 10.5%; HR 0.38; P = .004).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared to RVP. Higher burden of ventricular pacing (>20%) was the primary driver of these outcome differences.

Left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT): Results from an international LBBAP collaborative study group

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) based on the conventional biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) technique sometimes results in broad QRS complex and suboptimal response.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of CRT based on left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP, in lieu of the right ventricular lead) combined with coronary venous left ventricular pacing in an international multicenter study.

METHODS

LBBAP-optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) was attempted in nonconsecutive patients with CRT indications. Addition of the LBBA (or coronary venous) lead was at the discretion of the implanting physician, who was guided by suboptimal paced QRS complex, and/or on clinical grounds.

RESULTS

LOT-CRT was successful in 91 of 112 patients (81%). The baseline characteristics were as follows: mean age 70 ± 11 years, female 22 (20%), left ventricular ejection fraction 28.7% ± 9.8%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter 62 ± 9 mm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level 5821 ± 8193 pg/mL, left bundle branch block 47 (42%), nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay 25 (22%), right ventricular pacing 26 (23%), and right bundle branch block 14 (12%). The procedure characteristics were as follows: mean fluoroscopy time 27.3 ± 22 minutes, LBBAP capture threshold 0.8 ± 0.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and R-wave amplitude 10 mV. LOT-CRT resulted in significantly greater narrowing of QRS complex from 182 ± 25 ms at baseline to 144 ± 22 ms (P < .0001) than did BiV-CRT (170 ± 30 ms; P < .0001) and LBBAP (162 ± 23 ms; P < .0001). At follow-up of ≥3 months, the ejection fraction improved to 37% ± 12%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter decreased to 59 ± 9 mm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level decreased to 2514 ± 3537 pg/mL, pacing parameters were stable, and clinical improvement was noted in 76% of patients (New York Heart Association class 2.9 vs 1.9).

CONCLUSION

LOT-CRT is feasible and safe and provides greater electrical resynchronization as compared with BiV-CRT and could be an alternative, especially when only suboptimal electrical resynchronization is obtained with BiV-CRT. Randomized controlled trials comparing LOT-CRT and BiV-CRT are needed.

Effectiveness of multipoint cardiac resynchronizing therapy in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an important validated technique for patients with dyssynchrony and heart failure. However, the response rate to conventional resynchronization is approximately 50%; therefore, new techniques and schedules have emerged. This study aimed to evaluate the different clinical and echocardiographic variables of conventional versus multipoint cardiac resynchronization therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

A systematic review was conducted of randomized clinical trials in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases on cardiac resynchronization intervention with multipoint stimulation clinical and echocardiographic outcomes evaluated before and 3 months after the intervention.

RESULTS

Three studies (N = 139) were ultimately selected, and 100% of patients had a New York Heart Association functional class of II-IV, QRS > 120 ms, and a left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%. Significantly greater improvement was observed in the functional class of patients who underwent multipoint versus conventional therapy. The final systolic volume and ejection fraction improved in the multipoint group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature lacks sufficient randomized controlled studies to enable conclusions regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy responses using different strategies. Moreover, the improvement in functional class in the multipoint pacing group involved few patients and had slight statistical relevance.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a technique of pacing that involves implantation of permanent pacing leads along different sites of the cardiac conduction system and includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing. There is an emerging role for CSP to achieve cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and inter-ventricular dyssynchrony. In this article, the authors review these strategies for resynchronisation and the available data on the use of CSP in overcoming dyssynchrony.

Small decreases in biventricular pacing percentages are associated with multiple metrics of worsening heart failure as measured from a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Lower BiVentricular (BiV) pacing percentages have been associated with significantly worse survival in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). However, the pathophysiology behind this observation has not been further delineated. This analysis evaluated whether small incremental decreases in BiV pacing percentages were associated with worse measures, related to HF physiology using individual sensor trends and the HeartLogic composite index.

METHODS

Sensor data was obtained from 900 ambulatory HF patients with implanted CRT devices. The percent of cardiac cycles with BiV pacing was assessed for periods (median = 7.3 days) between data downloads (median = 55 periods/patient).

RESULTS

The third heart sound (S3), respiration rate, RSBI, and night-time heart rate were significantly elevated with sub-optimal pacing (<98%), while the first heart sound (S1), thoracic impedance, and activity were significantly lower. All sensor changes were in the direction associated with worsening HF. While IN the HeartLogic alert state (threshold above an Index of 16) the odds of optimal BiV pacing (≥98%) were less than when OUT of the HeartLogic alert state for a given subject (OR: 0.655; 95% CI: 0.626-0.686; p < 0.0001). The percent BiV pacing was reduced and the HeartLogic Index was increased in the periods surrounding HFhospitalizations.

CONCLUSION

Lower BiV pacing percent is associated with multiple sensor changes indicative of worsening HF, and patients in HeartLogic alert are more likely to have suboptimal BiV pacing. Collectively, these data provide strong evidence that even small decreases in BiV percent pacing can lead to worsening HF.

Spanish Pacemaker Registry. 17th Official Report of the Section on Cardiac Pacing of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (2019)

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This report describes Spanish cardiac pacing activity during 2019: quantities and types of devices and demographic and clinical factors.

METHODS

The analysis is based on data obtained from the European Pacemaker Patient Identification Card, data submitted to the online platform cardiodispositivos.es, and supplier-reported data on the total number of implanted pacemakers.

RESULTS

Information was received on 15 833 procedures from 102 implantation centers, representing 39% of the estimated total activity. The implantation rates of conventional and resynchronization pacemakers were 832 and 32 units per million population, respectively. A total of 431 leadless pacemakers were implanted. Most implantations were performed in elderly patients (mean age, 78.7 years). Most electrodes were bipolar and with active fixation and 34.1% were magnetic resonance imaging-compatible. Atrioventricular block was the most common electrocardiographic abnormality. Dual-chamber sequential pacing predominated; nonetheless, up to 20% of patients in sinus rhythm received a single-chamber ventricular pacemaker, mainly those older than 80 years of age and women. Remote monitoring capability was present in 41% of cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers and in 14.8% of conventional pacemakers.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumption of pacing generators increased by 1.6%, mainly due to a 15.1% increase in cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers. Sequential pacing predominates; its use is influenced by age and sex. Remote monitoring increased by 20.6% in cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers and continues to be scarce in conventional pacemakers.

Biventricular pacing during cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

AIMS

We aimed to assess the effect of cardiac resynchronization on left ventricular (LV) function, volumes, geometry, and mechanics in order to demonstrate reverse remodelling using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with resynchronization on.

METHODS AND RESULTS

New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-III patients on optimal medical therapy with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, and complete LBBB with broad QRS (>150 ms) were prospectively recruited. Cardiac magnetic resonance examination was performed at baseline and at 6-month follow-up, applying both biventricular and AOO pacing. The following data were measured: conventional CMR parameters, remodelling indices, global longitudinal, circumferential, radial strain, global dyssynchrony [mechanical dispersion (MD) defined as the standard deviation of time to peak longitudinal/circumferential strain in 16 LV segments], and regional dyssynchrony (maximum differences in time between peak septal and lateral transversal displacement). Thirteen patients (64 ± 7 years, 38% male) were enrolled. Comparing the baseline and follow-up CMR parameters measured during biventricular pacing, significant increase in LVEF, and decrease in LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVi) and LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) were found. Left ventricular remodelling indices, global longitudinal, circumferential, and radial strain values showed significant improvement. Circumferential MD decreased (20.5 ± 5.5 vs. 13.4 ± 3.4, P < 0.001), while longitudinal MD did not change. Regional dyssynchrony drastically improved (362 ± 96 vs. 104 ± 66 ms, P < 0.001). Applying AOO pacing resulted in an immediate deterioration in LVEF, LVESVi, circumferential strain, global and regional dyssynchrony.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging during biventricular pacing is feasible and enables a more precise quantification of LV function, morphology, and mechanics. As a result, it may contribute to a better understanding of the effects of resynchronization therapy and might improve responder rate in the future.

Clinical outcome of left ventricular multipoint pacing versus conventional biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for selected patients with systolic heart failure. Unlike conventional biventricular pacing (BIP), the left ventricular multipoint pacing (MPP) can increase the number of left ventricular pacing sites via a quadripolar lead positioned in the coronary sinus. This synthetic study was conducted to integratively and quantitatively evaluate the clinical outcome of MPP in comparison with BIP. We systematically searched the databases of EMBASE, Ovid medline, and Cochrane Library through May 2018 for studies comparing the clinical outcome of MPP with BIP in the patients who accepted CRT. Hospitalization for reason of heart failure, left ventricular eject fraction (LVEF), CRT response, all-cause morbidity, and cardiovascular death rate was collected for meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies with 29,606 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with BIP group, MPP decreased heart failure hospitalization (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.50; P < 0.00001), improved LVEF (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, 3.11 to 6.83; P < 0.00001), increased CRT response (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.68 to 7.87; P = 0.001), and decreased all-cause morbidity (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.66; P = 0.0002) and cardiovascular death rate (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.40; P < 0.00001). The published literature demonstrates that MPP was more effective than BIP in the heart failure patients who accepted cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Spanish Pacemaker Registry. 16th Official Report of the Spanish Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiac Pacing (2018)

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This report describes the result of the analysis of the implanted pacemakers reported to the Spanish Pacemaker Registry in 2018.

METHODS

The analysis is based on the information provided by the European Pacemaker Identification Card and supplier-reported data on the overall number of implanted pacemakers.

RESULTS

Information was received from 90 hospitals, with a total of 12 148 cards, representing 31% of the estimated activity. Use of conventional and resynchronization pacemakers was 825 and 77 units per million people, respectively. The mean age of the patients receiving an implant was 78.3 years, and 54% of the devices were implanted in people aged> 80 years. A total of 77.1% were first implants and 21.6% corresponded to generator exchanges. Bicameral sequential pacing was the most frequent pacing mode but was less frequently used in patients aged> 80 years and in women. Single chamber VVI/R pacing was used in 28% of patients with sick sinus syndrome and in 24.7% of those with atrioventricular block, despite being in sinus rhythm.

CONCLUSIONS

The total consumption of pacemaker generators in Spain increased by 1.2% compared with 2017, mainly due to an 8.7% increase in cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker generators. Selection of pacing mode was directly influenced by age and sex.

Atrial fibrillation incidence and impact of biventricular pacing on long-term outcome in patients with heart failure treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

In patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an unfavorable outcome and may cause loss of biventricular pacing (BivP). An effective delivery of BivP of more than 98% of all ventricular beats has been shown to be a major determinant of CRT-success.

Methods

At a Swedish tertiary referral center, data was retrospectively obtained from patient registers, medical records and preoperative electrocardiograms. Data regarding AF and BivP during the first year of follow-up was assessed from CRT-device interrogations. No intra-cardiac electrograms were studied. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox-regression analyses adjusted for age, etiology of heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction, left bundle branch block and NYHA class were performed to assess the impact of AF and BivP on the risk of death or heart transplantation (HTx) at 10-years of follow-up.

Results

Preoperative AF-history was found in 54% of the 379 included patients and was associated with, but did not independently predict death or HTx. The one-year incidence of new device-detected AF was 22% but not associated with poorer prognosis. At one-year, AF-history and BivP≤98%, was associated with a higher risk of death or HTx compared to patients without AF (HR 1.9, 95%CI 1.2–3.0, p = 0.005) whereas AF and BivP> 98% was not (HR 1.4, 95%CI 0.9–2.3, p = 0.14).

Conclusions

In CRT-recipients, AF-history is common and associated with poor outcome. AF-history does not independently predict mortality and is probably only a marker of a more severe underlying disease. BivP≤98% during first-year of CRT-treatment independently predicts poor outcome thus further supporting the use of 98% threshold of BivP, which should be attained to maximize the benefits of CRT.

Quadripolar versus bipolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: An analysis of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

BACKGROUND

The introduction of quadripolar (QP) cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) leads aimed to improve procedural and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry was analyzed to characterize the use as well as the procedural and clinical outcomes of QP leads in comparison with unipolar and bipolar (BP) leads.

METHODS

We evaluated data on 175,684 procedures reported between September 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data.

RESULTS

Among all CRT device implants, there was a drop in reported lead placement failure from 6.04% to 5.21% (P < .0001 for trend) and a drop in the reported diaphragmatic stimulation rates from 0.07% to 0.01% (P < .007 for trend) between the last quarters of 2010 and 2015. No significant difference in procedural complication rates between QP and BP leads occurred (1.34% and 1.39%, respectively; P = .50). Among patients linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data, no statistically significant difference in the combined primary outcome of death, congestive heart failure admission, device malfunction, and reoperation between BP and QP leads was observed (34.15 and 34.19 events per 100 patient-years, respectively; P = .89).

CONCLUSION

Since the introduction of QP leads, there was a reduction in CRT lead placement failure rates and a reduction in diaphragmatic stimulation rates. However, no statistically significant difference in long-term clinical outcomes between BP and QP leads was observed in elderly patients undergoing CRT implantation.