Clinical and procedural characteristics of acute hemodynamic responders undergoing triple-site ventricular pacing for advanced heart failure

Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

Multi-lead pacing is a potential therapy to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by providing rapid activation of the myocardium from multiple sites. Here, we perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of multi-lead pacing.

Methods and results

A literature search was performed which identified 251 unique records. After screening, 6 studies were found to meet inclusion criteria, with 415 patients included in the meta-analysis. Four studies performed multi-lead pacing with two left ventricular (LV) leads and one right ventricular (RV) lead. One study used two RV leads and one LV lead, and one study used both configurations. There was no difference between multi-lead pacing and conventional CRT in LV end-systolic volume [mean difference (MD) -0.54 mL, P = 0.93] or LV ejection fraction (MD 1.42%, P = 0.40). There was a borderline significant improvement in Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score for multi-lead pacing vs. conventional CRT (MD -4.46, P = 0.05), but the difference was not significant when only patients receiving LV-only multi-lead pacing were included (MD -3.59, P = 0.25). There was also no difference between groups for 6-min walk test (MD 15.06 m, P = 0.38) or New York Heart Association class at follow-up [odds ratio (OR) 1.49, P = 0.24]. There was no difference in mortality between groups (OR 1.11, P = 0.77).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis does not support the use of multi-lead pacing for CRT delivery. However, significant variation between studies was noted, and therefore a benefit for multi-lead pacing in select patients cannot be excluded, and further investigation may be warranted.

Benefits of Multisite/Multipoint Pacing to Improve Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Response

This article provides a general overview of the underlying mechanisms that support pacing from more discrete points and/or a wider vector (multisite and multipoint pacing) to improve left ventricular resynchronization. We performed a critical overview of the current literature and to identify some remaining knowledge gaps to spur further research. It was not our goal to provide a systematic review with a comprehensive bibliography, but rather to focus on selected publications that, in our opinion, have either expertly reviewed a specific aspect of cardiac resynchronization therapy or have been landmark studies in the field.

Triple-site pacing for cardiac resynchronization in permanent atrial fibrillation: follow-up results from a prospective observational study

Aims

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) is associated with a particularly high non-response rate in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to assess the effectiveness of triple-site (Tri-V) pacing CRT in this population.

Methods and results

Prospective observational study of patients with permanent AF who underwent CRT implantation with an additional right ventricle lead in the outflow tract septal wall. After implantation, programming mode (Tri-V or biventricular pacing) was selected based on cardiac output determination. Patients were classified as responders if NYHA class was reduced by at least one level and echocardiographic ejection fraction (EF) increased ≥ 10%, and as super-responders if in NYHA class I and EF ≥ 50%. Forty patients (93% male, mean age 72 ± 10 years) were included. Thirty-three were programmed in Tri-V. The following results pertain to this subgroup. At baseline, 58% were in NYHA class III and 36% NYHA class II. At 1 year follow-up, Minnesota QoL score was reduced (36 ± 23 vs. 8 ± 6; P = 0.001) and the 6MWT distance improved (384 ± 120 m to 462 ± 87 m, P = 0.003). Mean EF increased (26% ± 8 vs. 39 ± 10; P < 0.001 at 6 months and 41 ± 10; P < 0.001 at 12 months). Responder rate was 59% at 6 months and 79% at 12 months. Super-responder rate was 9% at 6 months and 16% at 12 months. One year survival free from heart failure hospitalization was 87.9%.

Conclusion

Tri-V CRT yielded higher response and super-response rates than usually reported for CRT in patients with permanent AF using clinical and remodeling criteria.

Comparison of triple-site ventricular pacing versus conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with systolic heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

Background

Conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT, Bi‐V) is associated with no response in about 40% patients due to an insufficient resynchronization. Some studies showed triple‐site ventricular (Tri‐V) pacing had greater benefits compared with Bi‐V pacing, but the results of these studies were conflicting. We hypothesized that Tri‐V pacing had greater benefits on long‐term outcomes compared with Bi‐V pacing in patients with heart failure.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for clinical studies with related outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular geometry, functional capacity, and quality of life between Tri‐V pacing group and control group.

Results

Five trials with 251 patients were included in the analysis. Patients in the Tri‐V pacing group had a greater improvement in LVEF (WMD 4.04; 95% CI 2.15‐5.92, P < .001) and NYHA classes (WMD −0.27; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.11, P = .001) compared with control group. However, there were no significant differences in left ventricular geometry, six‐min walk distance, or Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score between the two groups. The subgroup analyses showed there might be a greater improvement in LVEF in the Tri‐V pacing group in patients with QRS duration ≥ 155 ms (WMD 5.60; 95% CI 3.09‐8.10, P < .001).

Conclusions

The present analysis suggests that Tri‐V pacing has greater benefits in terms of an improvement in LVEF and functional capacity in patients with systolic heart failure, especially in patients with the duration of QRS ≥ 155 ms.

Triple-site pacing for cardiac resynchronization in permanent atrial fibrillation - Acute phase results from a prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Multi-site pacing is emerging as a new method for improving response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but has been little studied, especially in patients with atrial fibrillation. We aimed to assess the effects of triple-site (Tri-V) vs. biventricular (Bi-V) pacing on hemodynamics and QRS duration.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and ejection fraction <40% undergoing CRT implantation (n=40). One right ventricular (RV) lead was implanted in the apex and another in the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) septal wall. A left ventricular (LV) lead was implanted in a conventional venous epicardial position. Cardiac output (using the FloTrac™ Vigileo™ system), mean QRS and ejection fraction were calculated.

RESULTS

Mean cardiac output was 4.81±0.97 l/min with Tri-V, 4.68±0.94 l/min with RVOT septal and LV pacing, and 4.68±0.94 l/min with RV apical and LV pacing (p<0.001 for Tri-V vs. both BiV). Mean pre-implantation QRS was 170±25 ms, 123±18 ms with Tri-V, 141±25 ms with RVOT septal pacing and LV pacing and 145±19 with RV apical and LV pacing (p<0.001 for Tri-V vs. both BiV and pre-implantation). Mean ejection fraction was significantly higher with Tri-V (30±11%) vs. Bi-V pacing (28±12% with RVOT septal and LV pacing and 28±11 with RV apical and LV pacing) and pre-implantation (25±8%).

CONCLUSION

Tri-V pacing produced higher cardiac output and shorter QRS duration than Bi-V pacing. This may have a significant impact on the future of CRT.

Hemodynamic effects of Purkinje potential pacing in the left ventricular endocardium in patients with advanced heart failure

Background

Various difficulties can occur in patients who undergo cardiac resynchronization therapy for drug-refractory heart failure with respect to placement of the left ventricular (LV) lead, because of anatomical features, pacing thresholds, twitching, or pacing lead anchoring, possibly requiring other pacing sites. The goal of this study was to determine whether Purkinje potential (PP) pacing could provide better hemodynamics in patients with left bundle branch block and heart failure than biventricular (BiV) pacing.

Methods

Eleven patients with New York Heart Association functional class II or III heart failure despite optimal medical therapy were selected for this study. All patients underwent left- and right-sided cardiac catheterization for measurement of LV functional parameters in the control state during BiV and PP pacing.

Results

Maximum dP/dt increased during BiV and PP pacing when compared with control measurements. This study compared parameters measured during BiV pacing with PP pacing and non-paced beats as the control state in each patient (717±171 mmHg/s vs. 917±191 mmHg/s, p<0.05; and 921±199 mmHg/s, p<0.005); however, the difference between PP pacing and BiV pacing was not significant. There was no difference in heart rate, electrocardiographic wave complex duration, minimum dP/dt, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, left ventricular end-systolic pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, or cardiac index when comparing BiV pacing and PP pacing to control measurements.

Conclusions

The hemodynamic outcome of PP pacing was comparable to that of BiV pacing in patients with advanced heart failure.

Triventricular pacing improved dyssynchrony in heart failure patient with right-bundle branch block and left anterior fascicular block

The present case report describes a 53-year-old man with drug-resistant heart failure. Electrocardiogram showed complete right-bundle branch block and left anterior fascicular block. A cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device was implanted in him because echocardiography showed obvious left ventricular dyssynchrony between septal and lateral walls. After CRT implantation, dyssynchrony was improved and ejection fraction was increased. Evaluation of coexisting left hemiblock and left ventricular dyssynchrony may be needed in patients with atypical indications for CRT. <Learning objective: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for patients with complete right-bundle branch block (CRBBB) is still controversial. Presence of hemiblock and left ventricular dyssynchrony between the pacing sites may be essential to determine CRT indication even in patients with CRBBB.>.

Optimizing cardiac resynchronization therapy for congestive heart failure

In patients with advanced systolic heart failure and mechanical dyssynchrony, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective means of improving symptoms and reducing mortality. There are now several recognized approaches to optimize CRT. Imaging modalities can assist with identifying the myocardium with the latest mechanical activation for targeted left ventricular lead implantation. Device programming can be tailored to maximize biventricular pacing, and thereby is its benefit. Cardiac imaging has shown that atrioventricular and interventricular intervals can be adjusted to further reduce dyssynchrony. We review these various approaches that maximize the benefit derived from CRT.