The relationship between ventricular electrical delay and left ventricular remodelling with cardiac resynchronization therapy

Device therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction-cardiac resynchronization therapy and more

In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), optimal medical treatment includes beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors/angiotensinreceptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and ivabradine when indicated. In device therapy of HFrEF, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have been established for many years. CRT is the therapy of choice (class I indication) in symptomatic patients with HFrEF and a broad QRS complex with a left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology. However, the vast majority of heart failure patients show a narrow QRS complex or a non-LBBB morphology. These patients are not candidates for CRT and alternative electrical therapies such as baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) and cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) may be considered. BAT modulates vegetative dysregulation in heart failure. CCM improves contractility, functional capacity, and symptoms. Although a broad data set is available for BAT and CCM, mortality data are still lacking for both methods. This article provides an overview of the device-based therapeutic options for patients with HFrEF.

CRT Optimization: What Is New? What Is Necessary?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has proven to improve quality of life, reduce heart failure hospitalization, and prolong life in selected heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction, on optimal medical therapy and with electrical dyssynchrony. To ensure maximal benefit for CRT patients, optimization of care should be implemented. This begins with appropriate referring as well as selecting patients, knowing that the presence of left bundle branch block and QRS ≥ 150 ms is associated with the greatest reverse remodeling. The LV lead, preferably quadripolar, is best targeted in a postero-lateral position. After implantation, optimal device programming should aim for maximal biventricular pacing and in selected cases further electrical delay optimization might be of use. Even as important, is the implementation of thorough multidisciplinary heart failure care with medication uptitration, remote monitoring, rehabilitation, and patient education. The role of newer pacing strategies as endocardial or His-bundle pacing remains the subject of ongoing investigation.

Electrically vs. imaging-guided left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a randomized controlled trial

Aims

To test in a double-blinded, randomized trial whether the combination of electrically guided left ventricular (LV) lead placement and post-implant interventricular pacing delay (VVd) optimization results in superior increase in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients.

Methods and results

Stratified according to presence of ischaemic heart disease, 122 patients were randomized 1:1 to LV lead placement targeted towards the latest electrically activated segment identified by systematic mapping of the coronary sinus tributaries during CRT implantation combined with post-implant VVd optimization (intervention group) or imaging-guided LV lead implantation by cardiac computed tomography venography, 82Rubidium myocardial perfusion imaging and speckle tracking echocardiography targeting the LV lead towards the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardial segment (control group). Follow-up was 6 months. Primary endpoint was absolute increase in LVEF. Additional outcome measures were changes in New York Heart Association class, 6-minute walk test, and quality of life, LV reverse remodelling, and device related complications. Analysis was intention-to-treat. A larger increase in LVEF was observed in the intervention group (11 ± 10 vs. 7 ± 11%; 95% confidence interval 0.4–7.9%, P = 0.03); when adjusting for pre-specified baseline covariates this difference did not maintain statistical significance (P = 0.09). Clinical response, LV reverse remodelling, and complication rates did not differ between treatment groups.

Conclusion

Electrically guided CRT implantation appeared non-inferior to an imaging-guided strategy considering the outcomes of change in LVEF, LV reverse remodelling and clinical response. Larger long-term studies are warranted to investigate the effect of an electrically guided CRT strategy.

Differential effect with septal and apical RV pacing on ventricular activation in patients with left bundle branch block assessed by non-invasive electrical imaging and in silico modelling

Purpose

It is uncertain whether right ventricular (RV) lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy impacts response. There has been little detailed analysis of the activation patterns in RV septal pacing (RVSP), especially in the CRT population. We compare left bundle branch block (LBBB) activation patterns with RV pacing (RVP) within the same patients with further comparison between RV apical pacing (RVAP) and RVSP.

Methods

Body surface mapping was undertaken in 14 LBBB patients after CRT implantation. Nine patients had RVAP, 5 patients had RVSP. Activation parameters included left ventricular total activation time (LVtat), biventricular total activation time (VVtat), interventricular electrical synchronicity (VVsync), and dispersion of left ventricular activation times (LVdisp). The direction of activation wave front was also compared in each patient (wave front angle (WFA)). In silico computer modelling was applied to assess the effect of RVAP and RVSP in order to validate the clinical results.

Results

Patients were aged 64.6 ± 12.2 years, 12 were male, 8 were ischemic. Baseline QRS durations were 157 ± 18 ms. There was no difference in VVtat between RVP and LBBB but a longer LVtat in RVP (102.8 ± 19.6 vs. 87.4 ± 21.1 ms, p = 0.046). VVsync was significantly greater in LBBB (45.1 ± 20.2 vs. 35.9 ± 17.1 ms, p = 0.01) but LVdisp was greater in RVP (33.4 ± 5.9 vs. 27.6 ± 6.9 ms, p = 0.025). WFA did rotate clockwise with RVP vs. LBBB (82.5 ± 25.2 vs. 62.1 ± 31.7 ^op = 0.026). None of the measurements were different to LBBB with RVSP; however, the differences were preserved with RVAP for VVsync, LVdisp, and WFA. In silico modelling corroborated these results.

Conclusions

RVAP activation differs from LBBB where RVSP appears similar.

Trial registration

(ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01831518)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10840-019-00567-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quantification of abnormal QRS peaks predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy and tracks structural remodeling

Background

Although QRS duration (QRSd) is an important determinant of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response, non-responder rates remain high. QRS fragmentation can also reflect electrical dyssynchrony. We hypothesized that quantification of abnormal QRS peaks (QRSp) would predict CRT response.

Methods

Forty-seven CRT patients (left ventricular ejection fraction = 23±7%) were prospectively studied. Digital 12-lead ECGs were recorded during native rhythm at baseline and 6 months post-CRT. For each precordial lead, QRSp was defined as the total number of peaks detected on the unfiltered QRS minus those detected on a smoothed moving average template QRS. CRT response was defined as >5% increase in left ventricular ejection fraction post-CRT.

Results

Sixty-percent of patients responded to CRT. Baseline QRSd was similar in CRT responders and non-responders, and did not change post-CRT regardless of response. Baseline QRSp was greater in responders than non-responders (9.1±3.5 vs. 5.9±2.2, p = 0.001) and decreased in responders (9.2±3.6 vs. 7.9±2.8, p = 0.03) but increased in non-responders (5.5±2.3 vs. 7.5±2.8, p = 0.049) post-CRT. In multivariable analysis, QRSp was the only independent predictor of CRT response (Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval]: 1.5 [1.1–2.1], p = 0.01). ROC analysis revealed QRSp (area under curve = 0.80) to better discriminate response than QRSd (area under curve = 0.67). Compared to QRSd ≥150ms, QRSp ≥7 identified response with similar sensitivity but greater specificity (74 vs. 32%, p<0.05). Amongst patients with QRSd <150ms, more patients with QRSp ≥7 responded than those with QRSp <7 (75 vs. 0%, p<0.05).

Conclusions

Our novel automated QRSp metric independently predicts CRT response and decreases in responders. Electrical dyssynchrony assessed by QRSp may improve CRT selection and track structural remodeling, especially in those with QRSd <150ms.

Change in indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has rapidly evolved as a standard therapy for heart failure (HF) patients with ventricular conduction delay. Although in early trials, only patients with sinus rhythm and advanced stages of HF have been candidates for CRT, more recent data have expanded the indications to patients with mild-to-moderate HF and atrial fibrillation and patients in need of antibradycardia pacing with reduced left ventricular function. On the other hand, it is now well recognized that patients with a wide QRS (>150 ms) and left bundle branch block morphology benefit most from CRT, whereas in patients with a more narrow QRS complex (<130 ms) CRT may actually be harmful despite the evidence of ventricular dyssynchrony by echocardiography. There is no prospective randomized study showing mortality benefit from a combined CRT defibrillating device over a CRT pacer alone. This is especially important because recent data indicate that older patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy may not benefit from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator as much as previously thought. Thus, the decision for a CRT pacer versus CRT defibrillating should be tailored to the therapeutic goal (improvement in prognosis versus symptomatic relief), patient age, underlying cardiac disease and comorbidities. This article gives an overview over the current indications for CRT according to published literature and the European guidelines for pacing and HF.

Alternative left ventricular pacing approaches for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves mortality, morbidity, and quality of life in selected heart failure patients with severe left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction impairment. However, between 20% and 40% of device recipients do not benefit clinically from CRT. Indeed, some anatomic and technical difficulties are related to the coronary venous implantation site via the coronary sinus (CS). Additionally, electrical constraints have been described, and CS does not always correspond to the optimal LV lead position. In the last decade, engineers and physicians have worked together to overcome the challenging LV lead implantation, and various biventricular pacing alternatives have been developed to improve CRT response. In this review, we discuss the evolution from CS pacing to wireless LV stimulation and His-bundle pacing.

Myocardial recovery after cardiac resynchronization therapy in left bundle branch block-associated idiopathic nonischemic cardiomyopathy: A NEOLITH II substudy

BACKGROUND

Baseline predictors of myocardial recovery after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in left bundle branch block (LBBB)-associated idiopathic nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) are unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective study included subjects with idiopathic NICM, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, and LBBB. Myocardial recovery was defined as post-CRT LVEF ≥50%. Logistic regression analyses described associations between baseline characteristics and myocardial recovery. Cox regression analyses estimated the hazard ratio (HR) between myocardial recovery status and adverse clinical events.

RESULTS

In 105 subjects (mean age 61 years, 44% male, mean initial LVEF 22.6% ± 6.6%, 81% New York Heart Association class III, and 98% CRT-defibrillators), myocardial recovery after CRT was observed in 56 (54%) subjects. Hypertension, heart rate, and serum blood urea nitrogen (BUN) had negative associations with myocardial recovery in univariable analyses. These associations persisted in multivariable analysis: hypertension (odds ratio (OR), 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17-0.95; p = 0.04), heart rate (OR per 10 bpm, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.997; p = 0.048), and serum BUN (OR per 1 mg/dl, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; p = 0.04). Subjects with post-CRT LVEF ≥50%, when compared to <50%, had lower risk for adverse clinical events (heart failure hospitalization, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, appropriate anti-tachycardia pacing therapy, ventricular assist device implantation, heart transplantation, and death) over a median follow-up of 75.9 months (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.88; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In LBBB-associated idiopathic NICM, myocardial recovery after CRT was associated with absence of hypertension, lower heart rate, and lower serum BUN. Those with myocardial recovery had fewer adverse clinical events.

How to Implant Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in a Busy Clinical Practice

Implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices represents one of the more challenging and time-consuming procedures for the clinical electrophysiologist. This article reviews several strategies used to improve efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation. The cornerstone of our strategy to improve efficiency, safety, and quality of cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation is the use of a telescoping guide system with high-quality venography. Competency in subclavian venoplasty and snaring techniques are essential to maintain efficiency and effectiveness during difficult cases.

Ventricular electrical delay as a predictor of arrhythmias in patients with cardiac resynchronization implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) remodeling and clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is inversely related to electrical dyssynchrony, measured as LV lead electrical delay (QLV). Presence of atrial or ventricular arrhythmia is correlated with worsening heart failure and LV remodeling.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the association of QLV with arrhythmic events in CRT recipients.

METHODS

We identified patients implanted with a CRT device at our center. QLV interval was measured and corrected for baseline QRS (cQLV). We performed multivariable Logistic regression to assess the effect of cQLV on the occurrence of atrial/ventricular arrhythmic events.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were included in analyses. The cQLV was significantly shorter in patients with atria tachycardia/supraventricular tachycardia (AT/SVT) events compared to patients without AT/SVT events (43.4 ± 22% vs. 60.3 ± 26.7%, p = .006). In contrast, no significant difference in cQLV was observed between patients with and without ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) events (46.2 ± 25.4% vs. 56 ± 25.7%, p = .13). cQLV was significantly shorter in patients with new onset AT/SVT events compared to those without (38.3 ± 22.2% vs. 55.7 ± 25.7%, p = .028). In contrast, no significant difference in cQLV was observed between patients with and without new onset VT/VF events (44.2 ± 25.2% vs. 56.3 ± 25.5%, p = .069). Following adjusted analyses, cQLV was a significant predictor of AT/SVT, but not for VT/VF.

CONCLUSION

cQLV is a simple measure that can identify a vulnerable cohort of CRT patients at increased risk for atrial tachyarrhythmias, and hence can predict reverse remodeling and clinical response to CRT treatment.

Electrical latency predicts the optimal left ventricular endocardial pacing site: results from a multicentre international registry

Aims

The optimal site for biventricular endocardial (BIVENDO) pacing remains undefined. Acute haemodynamic response (AHR) is reproducible marker of left ventricular (LV) contractility, best expressed as the change in the maximum rate of LV pressure (LV-dp/dtmax), from a baseline state. We examined the relationship between factors known to impact LV contractility, whilst delivering BIVENDO pacing at a variety of LV endocardial (LVENDO) locations.

Methods and results

We compiled a registry of acute LVENDO pacing studies from five international centres: Johns Hopkins-USA, Bordeaux-France, Eindhoven-The Netherlands, Oxford-United Kingdom, and Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London-UK. In all, 104 patients incorporating 687 endocardial and 93 epicardial pacing locations were studied. Mean age was 66 ± 11 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 24.6 ± 7.7% and mean QRS duration of 163 ± 30 ms. In all, 50% were ischaemic [ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM)]. Scarred segments were associated with worse haemodynamics (dp/dtmax; 890 mmHg/s vs. 982 mmHg/s, P < 0.01). Delivering BiVENDO pacing in areas of electrical latency was associated with greater improvements in AHR (P < 0.01). Stimulating late activating tissue (LVLED >50%) achieved greater increases in AHR than non-late activating tissue (LVLED < 50%) (8.6 ± 9.6% vs. 16.1 ± 16.2%, P = 0.002). However, the LVENDO pacing location with the latest Q-LV, was associated with the optimal AHR in just 62% of cases.

Conclusions

Identifying viable LVENDO tissue which displays late electrical activation is crucial to identifying the optimal BiVENDO pacing site. Stimulating late activating tissue (LVLED >50%) yields greater improvements in AHR however, the optimal location is frequently not the site of latest activation.

Electrically guided versus imaging-guided implant of the left ventricular lead in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a study protocol for a double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial (ElectroCRT)

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment in patients with heart failure and prolonged QRS duration where a biventricular pacemaker is implanted to achieve faster activation and more synchronous contraction of the left ventricle (LV). Despite the convincing effect of CRT, 30-40% of patients do not respond. Among the most important correctable causes of non-response to CRT is non-optimal LV lead position.

METHODS

We will enroll 122 patients in this patient-blinded and assessor-blinded, randomized, clinical trial aiming to investigate if implanting the LV lead guided by electrical mapping towards the latest LV activation as compared with imaging-guided implantation, causes an excess increase in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). The patients are randomly assigned to either the intervention group: preceded by cardiac computed tomography of the cardiac venous anatomy, the LV lead is placed according to the latest LV activation in the coronary sinus (CS) branches identified by systematic electrical mapping of the CS at implantation and post-implant optimization of the interventricular pacing delay; or patients are assigned to the control group: placement of the LV lead guided by cardiac imaging. The LV lead is targeted towards the latest mechanical LV activation as identified by echocardiography and outside myocardial scar as identified by myocardial perfusion (MP) imaging. The primary endpoint is change in LVEF at 6-month follow up (6MFU) as compared with baseline measured by two-dimensional echocardiography. Secondary endpoints include relative percentage reduction in LV end-systolic volume, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and a clinical combined endpoint of response to CRT at 6MFU defined as the patient being alive, not hospitalized for heart failure, and experiencing improvement in NYHA functional class or/and > 10% increase in 6-minute walk test.

DISCUSSION

We assume an absolute increase in LVEF of 12% in the intervention group versus 8% in the control group. If an excess increase in LVEF can be achieved by LV lead implantation guided by electrical mapping, this study supports the conduct of larger trials investigating the impact of this strategy for LV-lead implantation on clinical outcomes in patients treated with CRT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02346097 . Registered on 12 January 2015. Patients were enrolled between 16 February 2015 and 13 December 2017.

Rationale and design for ENHANCE CRT: QLV implant strategy for non-left bundle branch block patients

AIMS

Historically, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response in non-left bundle branch block (non-LBBB) patients has been suboptimal in comparison with that observed in left bundle branch block patients. The electrical activation pattern of the left ventricle (LV) is different between these two QRS morphologies. Small non-randomized studies have suggested that targeting the LV wall with greatest electrical delay may be superior to conventional anatomical pacing from the lateral wall in non-LBBB patients. This article outlines the design and rationale of a prospective, randomized, pilot study, which assesses the effect of a non-traditional LV lead implant strategy on the clinical composite score after 12 months of follow-up in a non-LBBB patient population.

METHODS

All patients will receive an Abbott quadripolar CRT-D system (Quartet 1458Q LV lead with Unify Quadra™, Quadra Assura™ CRT-D or any market-approved CRT-D device with quadripolar pacing capabilities). Patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio between a QLV-based implant strategy vs. standard of care. Up to 250 patients will be enrolled in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

If the primary endpoint is achieved, this study will provide important information about reducing the non-responder rate in non-LBBB patients and provide further evidence for the QLV-based implant strategy.

Novel approach to discriminate left bundle branch block from nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay using pacing-induced functional left bundle branch block

PURPOSE

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) has a predictive value for response to cardiac resynchronization therapy as reported by Zareba et al. (Circulation 123(10):1061-1072, 2011). However, based on ECG criteria, the discrimination between complete LBBB and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay is challenging. We tested the hypothesis that discrimination can be performed using standard electrophysiological catheters and a simple stimulation protocol.

METHODS

Fifty-nine patients were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into groups of narrow QRS (n = 20), wide QRS of right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology (n = 14), and wide QRS of LBBB morphology (n = 25). Using a diagnostic catheter placed in the coronary sinus, left ventricular activation was assessed during intrinsic conduction as well as during right ventricular (RV) stimulation.

RESULTS

In patients with narrow QRS and RBBB, the Q-LV/QRS ratio was 0.43 ± 0.013 (n = 20) and 0.41 ± 0.026 (n = 14), respectively. In patients with LBBB morphology, the Q-LV/QRS split up into a group of patients with normal (0.43 ± 0.022, n = 7) and a group with delayed left ventricular activation (0.75 ± 0.016, n = 18). By direct comparison of the Q-LV/QRS ratio during intrinsic conduction with the Q-LV/QRS ratio during RV pacing leading to a functional LBBB, a clear distinction between a group of "true LBBB" and another group of "apparent LBBB"/nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (NICD) could be generated.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a novel and practical method that might facilitate discrimination between patients with apparent LBBB and true LBBB by comparing Q-LV/QRS ratios during intrinsic activation and during RV stimulation. Although this method can already be directly applied, validation by 3D electrical mapping and prospective correlation to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response will be required for further translation into clinical practice.

[Multipoint pacing-more CRT or a waste of battery power?]

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with broad QRS complex ≥130 ms and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction despite optimal guideline-directed medical therapy. However, approximately 30% of the patients implanted with a CRT system do not show clinical benefit. Reasons for nonresponse are complex and some aspects can be addressed during follow-up. Based on quadripolar lead technology, multipoint pacing (MPP) allows left ventricular stimulation at two different sites along the lead. In particular, in scarred and fibrotic ventricular myocardium stimulation at two different sites may overcome conduction barriers and lead to homogeneous ventricular depolarization. Especially for patients that do not respond to conventional CRT, activation of MPP may present an option to increase clinical response. On the other hand, MPP may significantly decrease battery longevity.This review offers an overview of the current knowledge and data on MPP balancing the potential clinical benefit and the possible disadvantages of this therapy.

[Coronary sinus mapping of the optimal LV electrode position]

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established pillar of treatment for patients with chronic heart failure. However, 30% of patients do not respond adequately to this type of therapy. One possible reason for this is a nonoptimal left ventricular stimulation site. This review focuses on possibilities of visualization of the coronary vein anatomy and its role in the determination of the electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony to optimize the therapeutic success of the resynchronization therapy. In addition, the clinical implication and the perspectives of a dedicated mapping of the coronary vein are discussed. Finally, a brief outlook on current and future technologies for improving this form of therapy is given.

Effect of Interventricular Electrical Delay on Atrioventricular Optimization for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Routine atrioventricular optimization (AVO) has not been shown to improve outcomes with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, more recently subgroup analyses of multicenter CRT trials have identified electrocardiographic or lead positions associated with benefit from AVO. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to evaluate whether interventricular electrical delay modifies the impact of AVO on reverse remodeling with CRT.

METHODS

This substudy of the SMART-AV trial (SMARTDELAY Determined AV Optimization) included 275 subjects who were randomized to either an electrogram-based AVO (SmartDelay) or nominal atrioventricular delay (120 ms). Interventricular delay was defined as the time between the peaks of the right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) electrograms (RV-LV duration). CRT response was defined prospectively as a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume from implant to 6 months.

RESULTS

The cohort was 68% men, with a mean age of 65±11 years and LV ejection fraction of 28±8%. Longer RV-LV durations were significantly associated with CRT response ( P<0.01) for the entire cohort. Moreover, the benefit of AVO increased as RV-LV duration prolonged. At the longest quartile, there was a 4.26× greater odds of a remodeling response compared with nominal atrioventricular delays ( P=0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline interventricular delay predicted CRT response. At long RV-LV durations, AVO can increase the likelihood of reverse remodeling with CRT. AVO and LV lead location optimized to maximize interventricular delay may work synergistically to increase CRT response.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00874445.

Optimal site selection and image fusion guidance technology to facilitate cardiac resynchronization therapy

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has emerged as one of the few effective treatments for heart failure. However, up to 50% of patients derive no benefit. Suboptimal left ventricle (LV) lead position is a potential cause of poor outcomes while targeted lead deployment has been associated with enhanced response rates. Image-fusion guidance systems represent a novel approach to CRT delivery, allowing physicians to both accurately track and target a specific location during LV lead deployment.

AREAS COVERED

This review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of how to define the optimal pacing site. We will evaluate the evidence for delivering targeted LV stimulation at sites displaying favorable viability or advantageous mechanical or electrical properties. Finally, we will evaluate several emerging image-fusion guidance systems which aim to facilitate optimal site selection during CRT.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Targeted LV lead deployment is associated with reductions in morbidity and mortality. Assessment of tissue characterization and electrical latency are critical and can be achieved in a number of ways. Ultimately, the constraints of coronary sinus anatomy have forced the exploration of novel means of delivering CRT including endocardial pacing which hold promise for the future of CRT delivery.

The rationale and design of the SMART CRT trial

AIMS

The SMART CRT study will assess the efficacy of an atrioventricular optimization algorithm to improve reverse remodeling among patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the presence of interventricular electrical delay.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SMART CRT study is a global, multicenter, prospective, randomized study of patients undergoing CRT implantation. The primary endpoint of this trial is response rate to CRT, defined as decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) ≥15% at 6 months compared to preimplant baseline. Additional prespecified analyses are: (1) clinical composite endpoint combining all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association class, and Quality of Life (using a patient global assessment instrument); (2) the individual components of the clinical composite endpoint; (3) 6-minute walk distance; (4) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; (5) LVESV as a continuous variable; and (6) absolute left-ventricular ejection fraction. Subjects with intraventricular delay ≥ 70 ms measured between the right ventricular and left ventricular pacing leads will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to have either an AV Delay and pacing chamber determined by SmartDelay™ or a Fixed AV Delay of 120 ms with biventricular pacing. Enrollment of an estimated 726 of subjects from up to 100 centers worldwide is planned to achieve 436 randomized subjects and 370 complete data sets required to power the primary endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide important data regarding the importance of AV Delay programming in patients with prolonged interventricular delay at the pacing sites.

Guidance for Optimal Site Selection of a Leadless Left Ventricular Endocardial Electrode Improves Acute Hemodynamic Response and Chronic Remodeling

OBJECTIVES

This study hypothesized that guided implants, in which the optimal left ventricular endocardial (LV_ENDO) pacing location was identified and targeted, would improve acute markers of contractility and chronic markers of cardiac resynchronization (CRT) response.

BACKGROUND

Biventricular endocardial (BiV_ENDO) pacing may offer a potential benefit over standard CRT; however, the optimal LV_ENDO pacing site is highly variable. Indiscriminately delivered BiV_ENDO pacing is associated with a reverse remodeling response rate of between 40% and 60%.

METHODS

Registry of centers implanting a wireless, LV_ENDO pacing system (WiSE-CRT System, EBR Systems, Sunnyvale, California); John Radcliffe Hospital (Oxford, United Kingdom), Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital (London, United Kingdom), and The James Cook University Hospital (Middlesbrough, United Kingdom). Centers used a combination of preprocedural imaging and electroanatomical mapping the identify the optimal LV_ENDO site.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients across the 3 centers underwent a guided implant. Patients were predominantly male with a mean age of 68.8 ± 8.4 years, the mean LV ejection fraction was 34.2 ± 7.8%. The mean QRS duration was 163.8 ± 26.7 ms, and 30.8% of patients had an ischemic etiology. It proved technically feasible to selectively target and deploy the pacing electrode in a chosen endocardial segment in almost all cases, with a similar complication rate to that observed during indiscriminate BiV_ENDO. Ninety percent of patients met the definition of echocardiographic responder. Reverse remodeling was observed in 71%.

CONCLUSIONS

Guided endocardial implants were associated with a higher degree of chronic LV remodeling compared with historical nonguided approaches.

Optimizing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: an Update on New Insights and Advancements

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review focuses on the current advancements in optimizing patient response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

RECENT FINDINGS

It has been well known that not every patient will derive benefit from CRT, and of those that do, there are varying levels of response. Optimizing CRT begins well before device implant and involves appropriate patient selection and an understanding of the underlying substrate. After implant, there are different CRT device programming options that can be enabled to help overcome barriers as to why a patient may not respond. Given the multifaceted components of optimizing CRT and the complex patient population, multi-subspecialty clinics have been developed bringing together specialists in heart failure, electrophysiology, and imaging. Data as to whether this results in better response rates and outcomes shows promise.

Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta-analysis

Background

Traditionally the right ventricular (RV) pacing lead is placed in the RV apex in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). It is not clear whether nonapical placement of the RV lead is associated with a better response to CRT. We aimed to perform a meta‐analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared apical and nonapical RV lead placement in CRT.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and relevant references for studies and performed meta‐analysis using random effects model. Our main outcome measures were all‐cause mortality, composite of death and heart failure hospitalization, improvement in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricle end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricle end‐systolic volume (LVESV), and adverse events.

Results

Seven RCTs with a total population of 1641 patients (1199 apical and 492 nonapical) were included in our meta‐analysis. There was no difference in all‐cause mortality (5% vs 4.3%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45‐1.64; P = .65; I² = 11%) and a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization (14.2% vs 12.9%, OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.61‐1.38; P = .68; I² = 0) between apical and nonapical groups. No difference in improvement in EF (Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.37; 95% CI: −2.75‐3.48; P = .82; I² = 68%), change in LVEDV (WMD = 3.67; 95% CI: −4.86‐12.20; P = .40; I² = 89%) and LVESV (WMD = −1.20; 95% CI: −4.32‐1.91; P = .45; I² = 0) were noted between apical and nonapical groups. Proportion of patients achieving >15% improvement in EF was similar in both groups (OR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62‐1.16; P = .31; I² = 0).

Conclusion

In patients with CRT, nonapical RV pacing is not associated with improved clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared with RV apical pacing.

Avoiding non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a practical guide

Over two decades after the introduction of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) into clinical practice, ∼30% of candidates continue to fail to respond to this highly effective treatment of drug-refractory heart failure (HF). Since the causes of this non-response (NR) are multifactorial, it will require multidisciplinary efforts to overcome. Progress has, thus far, been slowed by several factors, ranging from a lack of consensus regarding the definition of NR and technological limitations to the delivery of therapy. We critically review the various endpoints that have been used in landmark clinical trials of CRT, and the variability in response rates that has been observed as a result of these different investigational designs, different sample populations enrolled and different means of therapy delivered, including new means of multisite and left ventricular endocardial simulation. Precise recommendations are offered regarding the optimal device programming, use of telemonitoring and optimization of management of HF. Potentially reversible causes of NR to CRT are reviewed, with emphasis on loss of biventricular stimulation due to competing arrhythmias. The prevention of NR to CRT is essential to improve the overall performance of this treatment and lower its risk-benefit ratio. These objectives require collaborative efforts by the HF team, the electrophysiologists and the cardiac imaging experts.

Programming Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy for Electrical Synchrony: Reaching Beyond Left Bundle Branch Block and Left Ventricular Activation Delay

BACKGROUND

QRS narrowing following cardiac resynchronization therapy with biventricular (BiV) or left ventricular (LV) pacing is likely affected by patient-specific conduction characteristics (PR, qLV, LV-paced propagation interval), making a universal programming strategy likely ineffective. We tested these factors using a novel, device-based algorithm (SyncAV) that automatically adjusts paced atrioventricular delay (default or programmable offset) according to intrinsic atrioventricular conduction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Seventy-five patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (age 66±11 years; 65% male; 32% with ischemic cardiomyopathy; LV ejection fraction 28±8%; QRS duration 162±16 ms) with intact atrioventricular conduction (PR interval 194±34, range 128-300 ms), left bundle branch block, and optimized LV lead position were studied at implant. QRS duration (QRSd) reduction was compared for the following pacing configurations: nominal simultaneous BiV (Mode I: paced/sensed atrioventricular delay=140/110 ms), BiV+SyncAV with 50 ms offset (Mode II), BiV+SyncAV with offset that minimized QRSd (Mode III), or LV-only pacing+SyncAV with 50 ms offset (Mode IV). The intrinsic QRSd (162±16 ms) was reduced to 142±17 ms (-11.8%) by Mode I, 136±14 ms (-15.6%) by Mode IV, and 132±13 ms (-17.8%) by Mode II. Mode III yielded the shortest overall QRSd (123±12 ms, -23.9% [P<0.001 versus all modes]) and was the only configuration without QRSd prolongation in any patient. QRS narrowing occurred regardless of QRSd, PR, or LV-paced intervals, or underlying ischemic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-implant electrical optimization in already well-selected patients with left bundle branch block and optimized LV lead position is facilitated by patient-tailored BiV pacing adjusted to intrinsic atrioventricular timing using an automatic device-based algorithm.

Characterizing left ventricular mechanical and electrical activation in patients with normal and impaired systolic function using a non-fluoroscopic cardiovascular navigation system

PURPOSE

Cardiac disease frequently has a degenerative effect on cardiac pump function and regional myocardial contraction. Therefore, an accurate assessment of regional wall motion is a measure of the extent and severity of the disease. We sought to further validate an intra-operative, sensor-based technology for measuring wall motion and strain by characterizing left ventricular (LV) mechanical and electrical activation patterns in patients with normal (NSF) and impaired systolic function (ISF).

METHODS

NSF (n = 10; ejection fraction = 62.9 ± 6.1%) and ISF (n = 18; ejection fraction = 35.1 ± 13.6%) patients underwent simultaneous electrical and motion mapping of the LV endocardium using electroanatomical mapping and navigational systems (EnSite™ NavX™ and MediGuide™, Abbott). Motion trajectories, strain profiles, and activation times were calculated over the six standard LV walls.

RESULTS

NSF patients had significantly greater motion and systolic strains across all LV walls than ISF patients. LV walls with low-voltage areas showed less motion and systolic strain than walls with normal voltage. LV electrical dyssynchrony was significantly smaller in NSF and ISF patients with narrow-QRS complexes than ISF patients with wide-QRS complexes, but mechanical dyssynchrony was larger in all ISF patients than NSF patients. The latest mechanical activation was most often the lateral/posterior walls in NSF and wide-QRS ISF patients but varied in narrow-QRS ISF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This intra-operative technique can be used to characterize LV wall motion and strain in patients with impaired systolic function. This technique may be utilized clinically to provide individually tailored LV lead positioning at the region of latest mechanical activation for patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01629160.

Guidewire Method for Measuring Local Left Ventricular Electrical Activation Time During Cardiac Resynchronization Implantation

The timing of local activation at left ventricular (LV) pacing leads is measured from the onset of the QRS complex to the peak of the LV electrogram (QLV). Pacing from the sites of late activation is associated with higher response rates to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Prior studies have measured QLV from permanent pacing leads, or have used electroanatomic mapping systems. The current study compares QLV measurements made with a guidewire to those collected from permanent LV pacing leads positioned at the same venous site without the use of electroanatomic mapping systems. In this study, 20 patients undergoing CRT implantation (14 males, mean QRS: 164.0 ms) had QLV measurements taken using a guidewire. QLV and LV electrogram duration measurements were made at LV pacing sites, and were repeated after positioning the permanent LV pacing lead at the same site. There was no difference in QLV measurements obtained using a guidewire and those obtained using the permanent pacing lead placed at the same site (p = 0.569). QLV measurements obtained with a guidewire and the permanent LV pacing lead at the same site, respectively, were strongly correlated (r = 0.965; p < 0.001). The median absolute difference in electrogram duration was 7.0 ms (p = 0.55). The average time required to make QLV measurements using the guidewire was 11.7 minutes [standard deviation (SD): 6.8]. The average total fluoroscopy time for the entire CRT implant procedure was 10.9 minutes (SD: 5.1). In light of these results, it can be suggested that a guidewire can be used to prospectively measure LV prior to selection or placement of a permanent pacing lead without the use of an electroanatomic mapping system.

Novel electrocardiographic dyssynchrony criteria improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Aims

We hypothesized that the greater the intra- or interventricular dyssynchrony (intraD, interD), the more effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is. We sought to improve patient selection for CRT by using novel ECG dyssynchrony criteria.

Methods and results

Left ventricular (LV) intraD was estimated by the absolute time difference between the intrinsicoid deflections (ID) in leads aVL and aVF divided by the QRS duration (QRSd): [aVLID - aVFID]/QRSd (%). InterD was estimated from the formula: [V5ID - V1ID]/QRSd (%). Their >25% value indicated electrical dyssynchrony present (ED+) and ≤25% value electrical dyssynchrony absent (ED-) diagnoses. Using the intraD + interD criteria (intra + interDC) together, if at least one of them indicated ED+ diagnosis, a final ED+ diagnosis, if both indicated ED- diagnosis, a final ED- diagnosis was made. Two authors, blinded to CRT response, retrospectively analysed pre-CRT ECGs of 124 patients with known CRT outcome. CRT response was defined as improvement of ≥ 1 NYHA class, being alive and having no hospitalizations for heart failure during 6 months of follow-up. 35/124 (28%) patients were non-responders (NRs), using the traditional criteria (TC) correct diagnosis was made in the remaining 89/124 (72%) responder (R) cases. The test accuracy (TA) of intra + interDC + TC [100/124 (81%), P < 0.001] was superior to that of TC [89/124 (72%)] due to its superior TA [36/43 (84%) vs. 29/43 (67%), respectively, P = 0.0156] in the non-specific intra-ventricular conduction disturbance (NICD) subgroup [43/124 (35%)]. In the left bundle branch block subgroup [70/124 (56%)] there was no between-criteria difference in TA.

Conclusion

The intra + interDC + TC predicts clinical response after CRT more accurately than TC alone, due to greater TA in the NICD subgroup.

Predictors of Total Mortality and Echocardiographic Response for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Cohort Study

Background

Clinical studies demonstrate that up to 40% of patients do not respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), thus, appropriate patient selection is critical to the success of CRT in heart failure.

Objective

Evaluation of mortality predictors and response to CRT in the Brazilian scenario.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study including patients submitted to CRT in a tertiary hospital in southern Brazil from 2008 to 2014. Survival was assessed through a database of the State Department of Health (RS). Predictors of echocardiographic response were evaluated using Poisson regression. Survival analysis was performed by Cox regression and Kaplan Meyer curves. A two-tailed p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 170 patients with an average follow-up of 1011 ± 632 days were included. The total mortality was 30%. The independent predictors of mortality were age (hazard ratio [HR] of 1.05, p = 0.027), previous acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (HR of 2.17, p = 0.049) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (HR of 3.13, p = 0.015). The percentage of biventricular stimulation at 6 months was identified as protective factor of mortality ([HR] 0.97, p = 0.048). The independent predictors associated with the echocardiographic response were absence of mitral insufficiency, presence of left bundle branch block and percentage of biventricular stimulation.

Conclusion

Mortality in patients submitted to CRT in a tertiary hospital was independently associated with age, presence of COPD and previous AMI. The percentage of biventricular pacing evaluated 6 months after resynchronizer implantation was independently associated with improved survival and echocardiographic response.

Repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations with quadripolar leads improves response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A single-center randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate whether repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations (LVPCs) with quadripolar leads (QUAD) can improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

Fifty-two eligible patients were enrolled and 1:1 randomized to either the quadripolar LV leads (QUAD) group or the conventional bipolar leads (CONV) group. In the QUAD group, optimization of LVPC was performed for all patients before discharge and for nonresponders at 3 months follow-up. Clinical evaluations and transthoracic echocardiograms were performed before, 3, and 6 months after CRT implantation.

RESULTS

At 3 months follow-up, 16 of 25 (64%) patients in the CONV group (1 patient was lost to follow-up) and 18 of 26 (69%) patients in the QUAD group were classified as responders. After optimizing the LVPCs in 3-month nonresponders in the QUAD group, 21 of 26 (80.8%) patients in the QUAD group were classified as responders at 6 months as compared with 17 of 25 (68%) patients in the CONV group. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increase, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction at 6 months were significantly greater in the QUAD group than in the CONV group (LVESV: -26.9 ± 13.8 vs -17.2 ± 13.3%; P = .013; LVEF: +12.7 ± 8.0 vs +7.8 ± 6.3 percentage points; P = .017; NYHA: -1.27 ± 0.67 vs -0.72 ± 0.54 functional classes; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional bipolar leads, CRT using quadripolar leads with repetitive optimized LVPCs resulted in an additional increase in LVEF and reduction in LVESV and NYHA functional class at 6-month follow-up.

Maximization of interventricular conduction time by means of quadripolar leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy

PURPOSE

Identifying the left ventricular (LV) site associated with the maximum spontaneous interventricular conduction time (right ventricle (RV)-to-LV interval) has proved to be an effective strategy for optimal LV pacing site selection in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of our study was to determine whether quadripolar LV lead technology allows RV-to-LV interval maximization.

METHODS

We enrolled 108 patients undergoing implantation of a CRT system using an LV quadripolar lead and 114 patients who received a bipolar lead. On implantation, the RV-to-LV interval was measured for the dipole of the bipolar leads and for each electrode of the LV lead (tip, ring 2, ring 3, ring 4).

RESULTS

In the quadripolar group, the mean RV-to-LV interval ranged from 90 ± 33 ms (tip) to 94 ± 32 ms (R4) (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). In 55 (51%) patients, the RV-to-LV interval was > 80 ms at all electrodes, while in 27 (25%) patients, no electrodes were associated with an RV-to-LV interval > 80 ms. At least one LV pacing electrode was associated with an RV-to-LV interval > 80 ms in 62 (70%) patients with a short (36 mm) inter-electrode distance, and in 19 (95%, p = 0.022) of those with a long distance (50.5 mm). In the bipolar group, the mean RV-to-LV interval was 72 ± 37 ms (p < 0.001 versus quadripolar). The RV-to-LV interval was > 80 ms in 44 (39%) patients (p < 0.001 versus quadripolar leads with both short and long inter-electrode distance).

CONCLUSIONS

Quadripolar leads allow RV-to-LV interval maximization. An optimal RV-to-LV interval seems achievable in the majority of patients, especially if the leads present a long inter-electrode distance.

Adaptive CRT in patients with normal AV conduction and left bundle branch block: Does QRS duration matter?

BACKGROUND

Adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) is a dynamic optimization algorithm which paces only the left ventricle (LV) when atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction is normal, thus reducing right ventricular (RV) pacing. However, the impact of QRS duration on aCRT efficacy remains uncertain. We examined whether QRS duration impacts aCRT effectiveness in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and preserved AV conduction.

METHODS

Randomized patients in the Adaptive CRT trial, which enrolled NYHA III/IV patients, were used in this analysis. Patients were randomized to receive aCRT or echo-optimized bi-ventricular CRT (control arm). Endpoints for this analysis were clinical composite score (CCS) at 6months post-implant and time to first heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death.

RESULTS

Among the 199 patients with LBBB and normal AV intervals at baseline, 80 patients (40%) had a baseline moderately wide QRS of 120-150ms. In this subgroup, a greater proportion of aCRT patients had an improved CCS (79% vs. 50%) at 6months compared to the control group (p=0.03). There was also a trend toward a lower risk of death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.24-1.15; p=0.10) in the moderately wide QRS subgroup with aCRT compared to the control arm. In the wide QRS subgroup, the efficacy was comparable in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Adaptive CRT was associated with improved patient outcomes over echo-optimized bi-ventricular CRT in patients with preserved AV conduction, LBBB, and moderately wide QRS. The adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00980057) was sponsored by Medtronic plc, Mounds View, MN.