Usefulness of Multisite Ventricular Pacing in Nonresponders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

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.

Pacing interventions in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) represent a high-risk, and difficult to treat population of heart failure patients. Studies have shown that these patients have a lower quality of life and reduced life expectancy compared to those who respond to CRT. Whilst the first-line treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure is "conventional" biventricular epicardial CRT, a range of novel pacing interventions have emerged as potential alternatives. This has raised the question whether these new treatments may be useful as a second-line pacing intervention for treating non-responders, or indeed, whether some patients may benefit from these as a first-line option. In this review, we will examine the current evidence for four pacing interventions in the context of treatment of conventional CRT non-responders: CRT optimization; multisite left ventricular pacing; left ventricular endocardial pacing and conduction system pacing.

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.

OUP accepted manuscript

Electrical disturbances, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), dyssynchrony, tachycardia, and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), are present in most patients with heart failure (HF). While these disturbances may be the consequence of HF, increasing evidence suggests that they may also cause or aggravate HF. Animal studies show that longer-lasting left bundle branch block, tachycardia, AF, and PVCs lead to functional derangements at the organ, cellular, and molecular level. Conversely, electrical treatment may reverse or mitigate HF. Clinical studies have shown the superiority of atrial and pulmonary vein ablation for rhythm control and AV nodal ablation for rate control in AF patients when compared with medical treatment. Ablation of PVCs can also improve left ventricular function. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established adjunct therapy currently undergoing several interesting innovations. The current guideline recommendations reflect the safety and efficacy of these ablation therapies and CRT, but currently, these therapies are heavily underutilized. This review focuses on the electrical treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We believe that the team of specialists treating an HF patient should incorporate an electrophysiologist in order to achieve a more widespread use of electrical therapies in the management of HFrEF and should also include individual conditions of the patient, such as body size and gender in therapy fine-tuning.