Acute and Chronic Response to CRT in Narrow QRS Patients

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.

Pacing Optimized by Left Ventricular dP/dtmax

Left ventricular (LV) dP/dt_max provides a sensitive measure of the acute hemodynamic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and can predict reverse remodeling on echocardiography. Its use to guide LV lead placement has been shown to improve outcomes in a multicenter randomized trial. Given the invasive protocol required for measurement, it is unlikely to be universally beneficial for patients undergoing CRT but may be useful for patients who do not respond to conventional CRT, or in those who have borderline indications or risk factors for non-response. In such cases, LV dP/dt_max may help guide LV lead placement, optimize device programming, and select the best alternative method of delivering CRT, such endocardial LV pacing or conduction system pacing.

Three-dimensional echocardiographic evaluation of mechanical dyssynchrony in systolic heart failure with narrow QRS complex

Objectives

To investigate the role of three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) in evaluation of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (LVMD) in heart failure (HF) patients with narrow QRS.

Methods

143 subjects (70 with HF and narrow QRS, 23 with HF and LBBB and 50 controls) were subjected to 3DE, evaluating global and regional dyssynchrony using systolic dyssynchrony index, maximum segmental dyssynchrony and opposite segment dyssynchrony. Spatial distribution of LVMD was studied in each patient using 3DE derived regional time volume curves. Extent of LVMD in HF patients with narrow QRS was compared to those with left bundle branch block (LBBB).

Results

Frequency of LVMD was similar in HF patients with narrow QRS or LBBB (55.7% vs. 47.8%, p = NS). There was no difference in the severity of LVMD between these two groups (10.7 ± 6.7% vs. 12.1 ± 7.4%, p = NS). Both HF groups had significantly more dyssynchrony than controls. A scattered pattern of distribution of asynchronous segments was seen in narrow QRS patients; 33.96% of them had their earliest contracting segment, instead of delayed segment, located in areas conventionally targeted for LV pacing i.e. anterolateral, inferolateral or inferior segments.

Conclusions

3DE confirmed significant dyssynchrony in  > 50% HF patients with narrow QRS as demonstrated by other imaging methods. 3D distribution patterns of asynchronous segments indicate possibility of left ventricular mechanics related reasons responsible for lack of CRT responsiveness, an observation that generates hypothesis on possible reasons of CRT non-responsiveness.

Multipoint Pacing versus conventional ICD in Patients with a Narrow QRS complex (MPP Narrow QRS trial): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite an intensive search for predictors of the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the QRS duration remains the simplest and most robust predictor of a positive response. QRS duration of ≥ 130 ms is considered to be a prerequisite for CRT; however, some studies have shown that CRT may also be effective in heart failure (HF) patients with a narrow QRS (<130 ms). Since CRT can now be performed by pacing the left ventricle from multiple vectors via a single quadripolar lead, it is possible that multipoint pacing (MPP) might be effective in HF patients with a narrow QRS. This article reports the design of the MPP Narrow QRS trial, a prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled feasibility study to investigate the efficacy of MPP using two LV pacing vectors in patients with a narrow QRS complex (100-130 ms).

METHODS

Fifty patients with a standard ICD indication will be enrolled and randomized (1:1) to either an MPP group or a Standard ICD group. All patients will undergo a low-dose dobutamine stress echo test and only those with contractile reserve will be included in the study and randomized. The primary endpoint will be the percentage of patients in each group that have reverse remodeling at 12 months, defined as a reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) of >15% from the baseline.

DISCUSSION

This feasibility study will determine whether MPP improves reverse remodeling, as compared with standard ICD, in HF patients who have a narrow QRS complex (100-130 ms).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02402816 . Registered on 25 March 2015.

Narrow QRS systolic heart failure: is there a target for cardiac resynchronization?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy has revolutionized the management of systolic heart failure in patients with prolonged QRS during the past 20 years. Initially, the use of this treatment in patients with shorter QRS durations showed promising results, which have since been opposed by larger randomized controlled trials. Despite this, some questions remain, such as, whether correction of mechanical dyssynchrony is the therapeutic target by which biventricular pacing may confer benefit in this group, or are there other mechanisms that need consideration? In addition, novel techniques of cardiac resynchronization therapy delivery such as endocardial and multisite pacing may reduce potential detrimental effects of biventricular pacing, thereby improving the benefit/harm balance of this therapy in some patients.

Effect of study design on the reported effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on quantitative physiological measures: stratified meta-analysis in narrow-QRS heart failure and implications for planning future studies

Background

Biventricular pacing (CRT) shows clear benefits in heart failure with wide QRS, but results in narrow QRS have appeared conflicting. We tested the hypothesis that study design might have influenced findings.

Method and Results

We identified all reports of CRT‐P/D therapy in subjects with narrow QRS reporting effects on continuous physiological variables. Twelve studies (2074 patients) met these criteria. Studies were stratified by presence of bias‐resistance steps: the presence of a randomized control arm over a single arm, and blinded outcome measurement. Change in each endpoint was quantified using a standardized effect size (Cohen's d). We conducted separate meta‐analyses for each variable in turn, stratified by trial quality. In non‐randomized, non‐blinded studies, the majority of variables (10 of 12, 83%) showed significant improvement, ranging from a standardized mean effect size of +1.57 (95%CI +0.43 to +2.7) for ejection fraction to +2.87 (+1.78 to +3.95) for NYHA class. In the randomized, non‐blinded study, only 3 out of 6 variables (50%) showed improvement. For the randomized blinded studies, 0 out of 9 variables (0%) showed benefit, ranging from −0.04 (−0.31 to +0.22) for ejection fraction to −0.1 (−0.73 to +0.53) for 6‐minute walk test.

Conclusions

Differences in degrees of resistance to bias, rather than choice of endpoint, explain the variation between studies of CRT in narrow‐QRS heart failure addressing physiological variables. When bias‐resistance features are implemented, it becomes clear that these patients do not improve in any tested physiological variable. Guidance from studies without careful planning to resist bias may be far less useful than commonly perceived.

Comparison of the acute effects of right ventricular apical pacing and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure

OBJECTIVE

Upgrading to biventricular (BiV) pacing benefits heart failure patients with right ventricular (RV) apical pacing. However, the impact of switching from RV apical pacing to BiV pacing on the left ventricular (LV) function accompanied by changes in the QRS duration remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of BiV pacing in heart failure patients under RV apical pacing.

METHODS

In 37 patients with heart failure (LV ejection fraction: 22±9%), the maximum rate of LV pressure rise (LV dP/dtmax) and time constant of LV relaxation (tau) were determined in order to assess LV contractility and diastolic relaxation, respectively, under RV apical pacing and BiV pacing. Switching from RV pacing to BiV pacing, the QRS duration was shortened from 209±42 to 162±28 ms (p<0.001) and the LV dP/dtmax values were increased in all patients (+18.4±11.3%, p<0.001), whereas the LV tau values varied (-1.5±13.0%, p=0.723). Shortening of the QRS duration correlated with the increase in LV dP/dtmax (r=-0.689, p<0.001); however, it was not closely associated with the changes in LV tau.

CONCLUSION

Switching from RV apical pacing to BiV pacing improves the LV contractile function in proportion to the degree of QRS shortening. BiV pacing is recommended in patients with systolic heart failure and a prolonged RV-paced QRS duration.

PR Interval Identifies Clinical Response in Patients With Non–Left Bundle Branch Block

Background—

In Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT), patients with non–left bundle branch block (LBBB; including right bundle branch block, intraventricular conduction delay) did not have clinical benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D). We hypothesized that baseline PR interval modulates clinical response to CRT-D therapy in patients with non-LBBB.

Methods and Results—

Non-LBBB patients (n=537; 30%) were divided into 2 groups based on their baseline PR interval as normal (including minimally prolonged) PR (PR <230 ms) and prolonged PR (PR ≥230 ms). The primary end point was heart failure or death. Separate secondary end points included heart failure events and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare risk of end point events by CRT-D to implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the PR subgroups. There were 96 patients (22%) with a prolonged PR and 438 patients (78%) with a normal PR interval. In non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval, CRT-D treatment was associated with a 73% reduction in the risk of heart failure/death (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.57; P <0.001) and 81% decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.57; P <0.001) compared with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. In non-LBBB patients with normal PR, CRT-D therapy was associated with a trend toward an increased risk of heart failure/death (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–2.19; P =0.078; interaction P <0.001) and a more than 2-fold higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.12–4.09; P =0.022; interaction P <0.001) compared with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

Conclusions—

The data support the use of CRT-D in MADIT-CRT non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval. In non-LBBB patients with a normal PR interval, implantation of a CRT-D may be deleterious.

Clinical Trial Registration—

http://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT00180271.

Cardiac-resynchronization therapy in heart failure with a narrow QRS complex

BACKGROUND

Cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in chronic systolic heart failure with a wide QRS complex. Mechanical dyssynchrony also occurs in patients with a narrow QRS complex, which suggests the potential usefulness of CRT in such patients.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial involving 115 centers to evaluate the effect of CRT in patients with New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, a QRS duration of less than 130 msec, and echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular dyssynchrony. All patients underwent device implantation and were randomly assigned to have CRT capability turned on or off. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death from any cause or first hospitalization for worsening heart failure.

RESULTS

On March 13, 2013, the study was stopped for futility on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board. At study closure, the 809 patients who had undergone randomization had been followed for a mean of 19.4 months. The primary outcome occurred in 116 of 404 patients in the CRT group, as compared with 102 of 405 in the control group (28.7% vs. 25.2%; hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.57; P=0.15). There were 45 deaths in the CRT group and 26 in the control group (11.1% vs. 6.4%; hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.93; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with systolic heart failure and a QRS duration of less than 130 msec, CRT does not reduce the rate of death or hospitalization for heart failure and may increase mortality. (Funded by Biotronik and GE Healthcare; EchoCRT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00683696.).

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure and a QRS Complex <120 Milliseconds

Background—

Although the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy are well established in selected patients with heart failure and a prolonged QRS duration, salutary effects in patients with narrow QRS complexes remain to be demonstrated.

Methods and Results—

The Evaluation of Resynchronization Therapy for Heart Failure (LESSER-EARTH) trial is a randomized, double-blind, 12-center study that was designed to compare the effects of active and inactive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and a QRS duration <120 milliseconds. The trial was interrupted prematurely by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board because of futility and safety concerns after 85 patients were randomized. Changes in exercise duration after 12 months were no different in patients with and without active cardiac resynchronization therapy (−0.7 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI), −2.9 to 1.5] versus 0.8 minutes [95% CI, −1.2 to 2.9]; P =0.31]. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in left ventricular end-systolic volumes (−6.4 mL [95% CI, −18.8 to 5.9] versus 3.1 mL [95% CI, −9.2 to 15.5]; P =0.28) and ejection fraction (3.3% [95% CI, 0.7–6.0] versus 2.1% [95% CI, −0.5 to 4.8]; P =0.52). Moreover, cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the 6-minute walk distance (−11.3 m [95% CI, −31.7 to 9.7] versus 25.3 m [95% CI, 6.1–44.5]; P =0.01), an increase in QRS duration (40.2 milliseconds [95% CI, 34.2–46.2] versus 3.4 milliseconds [95% CI, 0.6–6.2]; P <0.0001), and a nonsignificant trend toward an increase in heart failure–related hospitalizations (15 hospitalizations in 5 patients versus 4 hospitalizations in 4 patients).

Conclusions—

In patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, symptoms of heart failure, and a QRS duration <120 milliseconds, cardiac resynchronization therapy did not improve clinical outcomes or left ventricular remodeling and was associated with potential harm.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00900549.