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

Estimate and reporting of longevity for cardiac implantable electronic devices: a proposal for standardized criteria

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are widely used according to consensus guidelines in various patient categories. The longevity of CIED is a major determinant of the frequency with which patients require device replacement. Given the mismatch between the useful life of the devices and patient survival, device replacement is often needed. There is a great variability in the criteria used by manufacturers to determine the longevity of pacemakers (PM), implantable defibrillators (ICDs), and devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Thus, a fair comparison and an effective device evaluation is often difficult.

METHODS

The objective of this paper is to provide standardized criteria based on typical clinical settings for estimating the longevity of single and dual chamber ICDs, cardiac resynchronization defibrillators (CRT-D), single and dual chamber PMs, and cardiac resynchronization PMs (CRT- P) to be used in health technology assessment for an appropriate comparison among different devices.

RESULTS

The proposed parameters, if applied to the current marketed devices, provide longevity values in the range 5-17.2 years.

CONCLUSION

The values of longevity with the non-standardized criteria used by the manufacturers result in higher maximum values respect to the proposed standardized criteria for CRT-D, CRTD-MPP, CRT-P, and Dual-chamber PM.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing via quadripolar lead versus traditional biventricular pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on hemodynamic, clinical, and prognostic parameters

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the cornerstones of heart failure (HF) therapy, as it has reduced mortality and morbidity and has shown improvement in functional capacity. Multipoint pacing (MPP) is a way of configuring CRT with the aim to improve the percentage of patients who respond to CRT.

Objective

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MPP compared to traditional biventricular pacing (BiV).

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines of studies in which MPP vs BiV strategy were compared.

Results

MPP use is associated with a higher rate of patients experiencing functional improvement (odds ratio: 2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56–4.06; P = .0002) and with higher delta LV dP/dt_max (mean difference, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.24–3.39; P = .0240) with respect to BiV. MPP and BiV have no significantly different effect on left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, -11.12 to 11.89; P = .9475); moreover, there is no significant difference between the 2 treatments regarding hospitalization for HF (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.54; P = .3816) and all-cause death (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.62; P = .5460). MPP is associated with a significantly lower projected battery longevity (mean difference -8.66 months; 95% CI, -13.67 to -3.66; P = .00007) with respect to BiV.

Conclusion

MPP significantly improves functional class and acute hemodynamic parameters with respect to BiV. Prognostic indices and LVESV are not significantly influenced by MPP. MPP is associated with a significant reduction in projected battery longevity.

Left ventricle pacing challenges in cardiac resynchronization therapy systems

Left ventricle (LV) pacing can be considered peculiar due to its different lead/tissue interface (epicardial pacing) and the small vein wedging lead locations with less reliable lead stability. The current technologies available for LV capture automatic confirmation adopt the evoked response (ER), as well as "LV pace to right ventricular (RV) sense" algorithms. The occurrence of anodal RV capture is today completely solved by the use of bipolar LV leads, while intriguing data are recently published regarding the unintentional LV anodal capture beside the cathodal one, which may enlarge the front wave of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery. The LV threshold behavior over time leading to ineffective CRT issues (subthreshold stimulation or concealed loss of capture), the extracardiac capture with phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS), the flexible electronic cathode reprogramming and the inadequate CRT delivery related to inadequate AV and VV pace timing (and its management by LV "dromotropic pace-conditioning") are discussed. Moreover, recently, His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) have shown growing interest to prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy as well as for direct intentional CRT. The purpose of the present review is to explore these new challenges regarding LV pacing starting from old concepts.