Eligibility for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients hospitalized with heart failure

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in acute heart failure and left bundle-branch block in a real-life registry

Objectives

To determine the prevalence, characteristics, timing of implementation and prognosis of patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and acute heart failure (AHF) treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in a real-life registry.

Methods

We analysed the characteristics of patients with AHF and LBBB at the time of inclusion in the EAHFE (Epidemiology Acute Heart Failure Emergency) cohort to determine the indication for CRT, the timing of implementation and its impact on 10-year all-cause mortality.

Results

729 patients with a median age of 82 years and there was a high burden of comorbidities and functional dependence. The median left-ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was 40%. Forty-six (6%) patients were treated with CRT at some point during follow-up, with a median time of delay for CRT implementation of 960 (IQR=1,147 days) and at least 108 more untreated patients fulfilled criteria for CRT. Patients receiving CRT were younger, had different comorbidities, less functional dependence (higher Barthel index) and lower LVEF values. The median follow-up was 5.7 years (95% CI: 5.6-5.8) and CRT was not associated with changes in 10-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.72-2.48; p-value 0.4). When compared with untreated patients fulfilling criteria for CRT, very similar results were observed (adjusted HR 1.34, 95% CI: 0.67-2.68).

Conclusions

CRT implementation was delayed and underused in patients with AHF and LBBB. Under these circumstances, CRT is not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in the long term.

Interpretable machine learning predicts cardiac resynchronization therapy responses from personalized biochemical and biomechanical features

BACKGROUND

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) is a widely used, device-based therapy for patients with left ventricle (LV) failure. Unfortunately, many patients do not benefit from CRT, so there is potential value in identifying this group of non-responders before CRT implementation. Past studies suggest that predicting CRT response will require diverse variables, including demographic, biomarker, and LV function data. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to integrate diverse variable types into a machine learning algorithm for predicting individual patient responses to CRT.

METHODS

We built an ensemble classification algorithm using previously acquired data from the SMART-AV CRT clinical trial (n = 794 patients). We used five-fold stratified cross-validation on 80% of the patients (n = 635) to train the model with variables collected at 0 months (before initiating CRT), and the remaining 20% of the patients (n = 159) were used as a hold-out test set for model validation. To improve model interpretability, we quantified feature importance values using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis and used Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) to explain patient-specific predictions.

RESULTS

Our classification algorithm incorporated 26 patient demographic and medical history variables, 12 biomarker variables, and 18 LV functional variables, which yielded correct prediction of CRT response in 71% of patients. Additional patient stratification to identify the subgroups with the highest or lowest likelihood of response showed 96% accuracy with 22 correct predictions out of 23 patients in the highest and lowest responder groups.

CONCLUSION

Computationally integrating general patient characteristics, comorbidities, therapy history, circulating biomarkers, and LV function data available before CRT intervention can improve the prediction of individual patient responses.

Novel Non-pharmaceutical Advancements in Heart Failure Management: The Emerging Role of Technology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarise and discuss the implications of recent technological advances in heart failure care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Heart failure remains a significant source of morbidity and mortality in the US population despite multiple classes of approved pharmacological treatments. Novel cardiac devices and technologies may offer an opportunity to improve outcomes. Baroreflex Activation Therapy and Cardiac Contractility Remodelling may improve myocardial contractility by altering neurohormonal stimulation of the heart. Implantable Pulmonary Artery Monitors and Biatrial Shunts may prevent heart failure admissions by altering the trajectory of progressive congestion. Phrenic Nerve Stimulation offers potentially effective treatment for comorbid conditions. Smartphone applications offer an intriguing strategy for improving medication adherence.

SUMMARY

Novel heart failure technologies offer promise for reducing this public health burden. Randomized controlled studies are indicated for assessing the future role of these novel therapies.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Cardiac Contractility Modulation in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: How to Select the Right Candidate?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is a well-established treatment of heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and a wide QRS complex. Cardiac contractility modulation therapy is an emerging electrical treatment indicated for use in patients with symptomatic heart failure caused by moderate-to-severe systolic left ventricular dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction ranging from 25% to 45%), with no indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Cardiac contractility modulation therapy improves functional status, exercise capacity, quality of life, and possibly prevents hospital admissions in indicated patients. An algorithm for patient selection for these two forms of electrical therapy for heart failure is presented.

Evolving Cardiac Electrical Therapies for Advanced Heart Failure Patients

Symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients despite optimal medical therapy and advances such as invasive hemodynamic monitoring remain challenging to manage. While cardiac resynchronization therapy remains a highly effective therapy for a subset of HF patients with wide QRS, a majority of symptomatic HF patients are poor candidates for such. Recently, cardiac contractility modulation, neuromodulation based on carotid baroreceptor stimulation, and phrenic nerve stimulation have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and are emerging as therapeutic options for symptomatic HF patients. This state-of-the-art review examines the role of these evolving electrical therapies in advanced HF.

How many patients with heart failure are eligible for cardiac contractility modulation therapy?

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence exists suggesting that cardiac contractility modulation therapy (CCM) improves symptoms in heart failure patients if various selection criteria are fulfilled. The aim of this study is to analyse an unselected sample of heart failure patients to establish what percentage of patients would meet the current criteria for CCM therapy.

METHODS

All patients admitted to two district general hospitals in the UK in 2018 with a diagnosis of heart failure were audited for eligibility for CCM therapy. The selection criteria were (a) ejection fraction (EF) 25%-45%, (b) QRS duration less than 130 ms, (c) New York Heart Association (NYHA) class 3-4 and (d) treated for heart failure for at least 90 days and on stable medications. Exclusion criteria included: (a) significant valvular disease, (b) permanent or persistent atrial fibrillation, (c) biventricular pacing system implanted or QRS duration more than 130 ms and (4) patients not suitable for device therapy as a result of palliative treatment intent.

RESULTS

A total of 475 patients were admitted with heart failure during the study period. From this group, 24 (5.1%) patients fulfilled the criteria for CCM therapy. The mean age and ejection fraction were 70.8 ± 10.2 and 32.5% ± 7.4%. The majority of patients were men (71%) and had an ischaemic cardiomyopathy (75%). If patients with atrial fibrillation were included, an additional 18 (3.8%) patients potentially may be eligible for CCM.

CONCLUSION

Only 5.1% of all patients presenting with heart failure might benefit from cardiac CCM. This is a small proportion of the overall heart failure population. However, this population has no other current option for device therapy of their condition.

Future research prioritization in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective for some patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), evidence gaps remain for key clinical and policy areas. The objective of the study was to review the data on the effects of CRT for patients with HFrEF receiving pharmacological therapy alone or pharmacological therapy and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and then, informed by a diverse group of stakeholders, to identify evidence gaps, prioritize them, and develop a research plan.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified using PubMed and EMBASE and ongoing trials using clinicaltrials.gov. Forced-ranking prioritization method was applied by stakeholders to reach a consensus on the most important questions. Twenty-six stakeholders contributed to the expanded list of evidence gaps, including key investigators from existing randomized controlled trials and others representing different perspectives, including patients, the public, device manufacturers, and policymakers.

RESULTS

Of the 18 top-tier evidence gaps, 8 were related to specific populations or subgroups of interest. Seven were related to the comparative effectiveness and safety of CRT interventions or comparators, and 3 were related to the association of CRT treatment with specific outcomes. The association of comorbidities with CRT effectiveness ranked highest, followed by questions about the effectiveness of CRT among patients with atrial fibrillation and the relationship between gender, QRS morphology and duration, and outcomes for patients either with CRT plus ICD or with ICD.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence gaps presented in this article highlight numerous, important clinical and policy questions for which there is inconclusive evidence on the role of CRT and provide a framework for future collaborative research.

Eligibility for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients hospitalized with heart failure

Aims

Recent guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in mildly symptomatic heart failure (HF) but favour left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology in patients with moderate QRS prolongation (120–150 ms). We defined how many patients hospitalized with HF fulfil these criteria.

Methods and results

A single‐centre retrospective cohort study of 363 consecutive patients hospitalized with HF (438 admissions) was performed. Electronic imaging, electrocardiograms, and records were reviewed. Overall, 153 patients (42%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%, and 34% of patients had QRS prolongation. Eighty patients (22%) were potentially eligible with LVEF ≤ 35% and QRS ≥ 120 ms or existing CRT. The majority (68 of 80) had a Class I or IIa recommendation according to international guidelines (LBBB or non‐LBBB QRS ≥ 150 ms or right ventricular pacing). Only a minority (12 of 80) had moderate QRS prolongation of non‐LBBB morphology. One‐quarter (n = 22) of patients fulfilling criteria were ineligible for reasons including dementia, co‐morbidities, or palliative care. A further eight patients required optimization of medical therapy. CRT was therefore immediately indicated in 50 patients. Of these, 29 were implanted or had existing CRT systems. Twenty‐one of the 80 patients eligible for CRT were not identified or treated (6% of the total hospitalized cohort).

Conclusions

Twenty‐two per cent of elderly real‐life patients hospitalized with HF fulfil LVEF and QRS criteria for CRT, most having a Class I or IIa indication. However, a large proportion is ineligible owing to co‐morbidities or requires medical optimization. Although uptake of CRT was reasonable, there remain opportunities for improvement.