CRT-D replacement strategy: results of the BioCONTINUE study

Electrical Storm Induced by Cardiac Resynchronization: Efficacy of the Multipoint Pacing Stimulation

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality and reverses left ventricular (LV) remodeling in heart failure patients with LV electrical dyssynchrony, induced proarrhythmia has been reported. The mechanism of CRT-induced proarrhythmia remains under debate. In this case report, a description of how LV pacing induced polymorphic ventricular tachycardia immediately after the initiation of CRT has been reported. By changing the pacing configuration using a multipoint pacing stimulation, we can assume that induced ventricular tachycardia is related to the reentry mechanism facilitated by the unidirectional block. As a result, a multipoint pacing (MPP) configuration near the scar area can avoid the onset of a unidirectional block with the establishment of the reentry phenomenon, thus avoiding induced VTs.

Evolving Concepts in Cardiac Physiologic Pacing in the Era of Conduction System Pacing

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP) has become a well-established therapy for patients with cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) in the presence of a left bundle branch block. In addition, CPP can be highly beneficial in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and patients with existing cardiomyopathy expected to have a right ventricular pacing burden of >40%. The benefits of CPP with traditional biventricular pacing are only realized if adequate resynchronization can be achieved. However, left ventricular lead implantation can be limited by individual anatomic variation within the coronary venous system and can be adversely affected by underlying abnormal myocardial substrate (i.e., scar tissue), especially if located within the basal lateral wall. In the last 7 years the investigation of conduction system pacing (CSP) and its potential salutary benefits are being realized and have led to a rapid evolution in the field of cardiac resynchronization pacing. However, supportive evidence for CSP for patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization remains limited compared with data available for biventricular cardiac resynchronization, mostly derived from leading CSP investigative centers. In this review, we perform an up-to-date comprehensive review of the available literature on CPP.

Follow-up of CRT-D patients downgraded to CRT-P at the time of generator exchange

Background

Some patients with cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) experience super-response (LVEF improvements to ≥50%). At generator exchange (GE), downgrading (DG) from CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) to CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) could be an option for these patients on primary prevention ICD indication and no required ICD therapies. Long-term data on arrhythmic events in super-responders is scarce.

Methods

CRT-D patients with LVEF improvement to ≥50% at GE were identified in four large centres for retrospective analysis. Mortality, significant ventricular tachyarrhythmia and appropriate ICD-therapy were determined, and patient analysis was split into two groups (downgraded to CRT-P or not).

Results

Sixty-six patients (53% male, 26% coronary artery disease) on primary prevention were followed for a median of 129 months [IQR: 101-155] after implantation. 27 (41%) patients were downgraded to CRT-P at GE after a median of 68 [IQR: 58-98] months (LVEF 54% ± 4%). The other 39 (59%) continued with CRT-D therapy (LVEF 52% ± 6%). No cardiac death or significant arrhythmia occurred in the CRT-P group (median follow-up (FU) 38 months [IQR: 29-53]). Three appropriate ICD-therapies occurred in the CRT-D group [median FU 70 months (IQR: 39-97)]. Annualized event-rates after DG/GE were 1.5%/year and 1.0%/year in the CRT-D group and the whole cohort, respectively.

Conclusions

No significant tachyarrhythmia were detected in the patients downgraded to CRT-P during follow-up. However, three events were observed in the CRT-D group. Whilst downgrading CRT-D patients is an option, a small residual risk for arrhythmic events remains and decisions regarding downgrade should be made on a case-by-case basis.