Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of multipoint pacing therapy: MOre REsponse on Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with MultiPoint Pacing (MORE-CRT MPP-PHASE II)

Cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responder to responder conversion rate in the MORE-CRT MPP trial

AIMS

To assess the impact of MultiPoint™ Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) non-responders after 6 months of standard biventricular pacing (BiVP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The trial enrolled 5850 patients who planned to receive a CRT device. The echocardiography core laboratory assessed CRT response before implant and after 6 months of BiVP; non-response to BiVP was defined as <15% relative reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). Echocardiographic non-responders were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive MPP (541 patients) or continued BiVP (570 patients) for an additional 6 months and evaluated the conversion rate to the echocardiographic response. The characteristics of both groups at randomization were comparable. The percentage of non-responder patients who became responders to CRT therapy was 29.4% in the MPP arm and 30.4% in the BIVP arm (P = 0.743). In patients with ≥30 mm spacing between the two left ventricular pacing sites (MPP-AS), identified during the first phase as a potential beneficial subgroup, no significant difference in the conversion rate was observed.

CONCLUSION

Our trial shows that ∼30% of patients, who do not respond to CRT in the first 6 months, experience significant reverse remodelling in the following 6 months. This finding suggests that CRT benefit may be delayed or slowly incremental in a relevant proportion of patients and that the percentage of CRT responders may be higher than what has been described in short-/middle-term studies. MultiPoint™ Pacing does not improve CRT response in non-responders to BiVP, even with MPP-AS.

Multisite Left Ventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and prolonged ventricular depolarization on surface electrocardiogram. Although patients' characteristics, such as their type of cardiomyopathy and the morphology and width of their baseline QRS complex, have been associated with CRT response, these features are not modifiable. Left ventricular multisite pacing has been proposed and tested as a tool to improve response to CRT and positively impact patient outcomes. This article reviews the published literature on left ventricular multisite pacing, with focus on the results of recently presented or published clinical trials.

Bipolar versus quadripolar left ventricular leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy: evidence to date

INTRODUCTION

In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, transvenous left ventricular (LV) leads are more prone to instability, high pacing thresholds, and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) that may necessitate lead revision, replacement in a suboptimal position, or deactivation of the lead. To overcome some of these challenges, quadripolar (QP) LV leads have been developed and accounted for over 90% of implanted LV leads 5 years after they were introduced.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of the current evidence of implanting QP leads in CRT as compared with traditional bipolar (BP) leads including details about feasibility, safety and lead performance, clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness.

EXPERT OPINION

Based on the current literature, implantation with a QP lead decreases revision rates but does not affect any clinical outcomes including mortality, hospitalization, symptoms, or echocardiographic parameters. Feasibility and stability do not differ between QP and BP leads. A QP lead should be preferred as first choice over a BP lead due to lower rates of PNS and lower pacing thresholds leading to less frequent lead revisions and battery replacements. In addition, this strategy may be cost saving despite a higher price of QP leads.

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.

Multipoint pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Multipoint pacing (MPP) has been proposed as an effective way to improve cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) response. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of CRT delivered via MPP compared to conventional CRT.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from inception to January 2021 for studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, comparing MPP to conventional CRT with a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Randomised and nonrandomised studies were assessed for relevant efficacy data including echocardiographic (left ventricular end systolic volume [LVESV] and ejection fraction) or functional changes (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class/Clinical Composite Score). Subgroup analyses were performed by study design and programming type.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies with a total of 1390 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, MPP demonstrated greater echocardiographic improvement than conventional CRT in nonrandomised studies (odds ratio [OR]: 5.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [3.05-9.33], p < .001), however, was not significant in randomised studies (OR: 1.86, 95% CI: [0.91-3.79], p = .086). There was no significant difference in LVESV reduction >15% (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: [0.69-5.55], p = .20) or improvement by ≥1 NYHA class (OR: 2.49, 95% CI: [0.74-8.42], p = .141) when comparing MPP to conventional CRT. In a sub analysis, MPP programmed by widest anatomical separation (MPP-AS) signalled greater efficacy, however, only 120 patients were included in this analysis.

CONCLUSION

Overall MPP was more efficacious in nonrandomised studies, and not superior when assessed in randomised studies. There was considerable heterogeneity in study design making overall interpretation of results challenging. Widespread MPP programming in all CRT patients is currently not justified. Further large, randomised studies with patient-specific programming may clarify its effectiveness.

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.

Real-world outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: design and baseline demographics of the SMART- Registry

AIMS

The SMART (Strategic MAnagement to optimize response to cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) Registry was designed to assess real-world outcomes for patients receiving a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) and to better understand which programming and optimization techniques are used and how effective they are.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SMART Registry is a global, multicentre, prospective, observational, post-market CRT-D registry with a planned enrolment of 2000 subjects from a maximum of 200 sites in Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific region. Each subject will be followed up for a minimum of 12 months. The primary endpoint of CRT response rate at 12 months is defined by a clinical composite score of all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association Class, and quality of life as assessed by a patient global assessment instrument. A subgroup composed of the first 103 consecutive European subjects implanted with an NG4 device will have left ventricular multisite pacing feature enabled at any time during the initial 12 months of follow-up. The primary endpoint for this sub-analysis will be the NG4 PG-related complication-free rate at 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The SMART Registry achieved its recruitment target in August 2019, with 2014 patients enrolled. The baseline demographics demonstrated that patients were generally older, with greater co-morbidity, and on more contemporary medical therapy than in the key CRT trials. The results of the SMART Registry will determine which programming and optimization techniques are effective in this real-world population.

Cardiac Electronic Devices: Future Directions and Challenges

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential management options for patients with brady- and tachyarrhythmias or heart failure with concomitant optimal pharmacotherapy. Despite increasing technological advances, there are still gaps in the management of CIED patients, eg, the growing number of lead- and pocket-related long-term complications, including cardiac device–related infective endocarditis, requires the greatest care. Likewise, patients with CIEDs should be monitored remotely as a part of a comprehensive, holistic management approach. In addition, novel technologies used in smartwatches may be a convenient tool for long-term atrial fibrillation (AF) screening, especially in high-risk populations. Early detection of AF may reduce the risk of stroke and other AF-related complications. The objective of this review article was to provide an overview of novel technologies in cardiac rhythm–management devices and future challenges related to CIEDs.

Lead choice in cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing)

Background: Few data are available regarding lead preferences of electrophysiologists during cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantation. Aim of this survey is to evaluate the leads used, and the reasons behind these choices, in a large population of implanters. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all 314 Italian centers with experience in CIED implantation. Results: 103 operators from 100 centers (32% of centers) responded. For atrium, passive leads represented first choice for pacemakers and defibrillators (71% and 64% of physicians, respectively), mainly for safety. For right ventricle, active fixation was preferred (61% and 93% operators in pacemaker and defibrillator patients), for higher versatility in positioning and lower dislodgement risk. For left ventricular stimulation, quadripolar leads were preferred by more than 80% of respondents, for better phrenic nerve and myocardial threshold management; active-fixation leads represent a second choice, in order to prevent or manage dislodgement (78% and 17% of respondents, respectively), but 44% of operators considered them dangerous. Conclusions: The choice of leads is heterogeneous. Trends are toward active-fixation right ventricular leads and passive-fixation atrial leads (particularly in pacemaker patients, considered frailer). For left ventricular stimulation, operators' majority want to disposition all kind of leads, although quadripolar leads are the favorites.

The Past, Present and Future of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has revolutionized the care of the patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and electrical dyssynchrony. The current guidelines for patient selection include measurement of left ventricular systolic function, QRS duration and morphology, and functional classification. Despite consistent and increasing evidence supporting CRT use in appropriate patients, CRT has been underutilized. Notwithstanding the heterogeneous definitions of non-response, more than one-third of patients demonstrate a lack of echocardiographic reverse remodeling or poor clinical outcome following CRT. Since the causes of this non-response are multifactorial, it will require multidisciplinary efforts to overcome including optimal patient selection, procedural strategies, as well as optimizing post-implant care in patients undergoing CRT. The innovations of novel pacing approaches combined with advanced imaging technologies may eventually offer a personalized CRT system uniquely tailored to each patient's dyssynchrony signature.