Why Dyssynchrony Matters in Heart Failure?

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Identifies Responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with an Assessment of Septal Scar and Left Ventricular Dyssynchrony

Background: The response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) depends on septal viability and correction of abnormal septal motion. This study investigates if cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a single modality can identify CRT responders with combined imaging of pathological septal motion (septal flash) and septal scar. Methods: In a prospective, multicenter, observational study of 136 CRT recipients, septal scar was assessed using late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (n = 127) and septal flash visually from cine CMR sequences. The primary endpoint was CRT response, defined as ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume with echocardiography after 6 months. The secondary endpoint was heart transplantation or death of any cause assessed after 39 ± 13 months. Results: Septal scar and septal flash were independent predictors of CRT response in multivariable analysis (both p < 0.001), while QRS duration and morphology were not. The combined approach of septal scar and septal flash predicted CRT response with an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.94) and was a strong predictor of long-term survival without heart transplantation (hazard ratio 0.27, 95% CI: 0.10-0.79). The accuracy of the approach was similar in the subgroup with intermediate (130-150 ms) QRS duration. The combined approach was superior to septal scar and septal flash alone (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The combined assessment of septal scar and septal flash using CMR as a single-image modality identifies CRT responders with high accuracy and predicts long-term survival.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

The role of contractile dyssynchrony in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: detailed assessment using index of contractile asymmetry

AIMS

The pathophysiological effects of chronic right ventricular pacing and the role of right ventricular lead position are not well understood. Therefore, we investigated the association between left ventricular contractile dyssynchrony and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with chronic right ventricular pacing. Furthermore, we assessed the association between right ventricular lead location and left ventricular contractile dyssynchrony.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study using data from 153 pacemaker patients with normal (≥ 50%) pre-implant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Baseline and follow-up echocardiograms were analyzed, and PICM was defined as LVEF < 50% with ≥ 10% decrease in LVEF after pacemaker implantation. Relative index of contractile asymmetry (rICA), a novel strain rate-based method, was calculated to quantify left ventricular contractile dyssynchrony between opposing walls in the three apical views. Right ventricular lead position was categorized into anterior septum, posterior septum, free wall, and apex based on contrast-enhanced cardiac computed tomography.

RESULTS

Forty-seven (31%) developed PICM. Overall contractile dyssynchrony, measured by mean rICA, was higher in the PICM group compared with the non-PICM group (1.19 ± 0.21 vs. 1.03 ± 0.19, p < 0.001). Left ventricular anterior-inferior dyssynchrony, assessed in the apical two-chamber view, was independently associated with PICM (p < 0.001). Thirty-seven (24%) leads were implanted anterior septal, 11 (7.2%) posterior septal, 74 (48.4%) apical, and 31 (20.3%) free wall. Left ventricular anterior-inferior dyssynchrony was significantly different between the four pacing lead locations (p < 0.01) with the highest rICA observed in the posterior septal group (1.30 ± 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

PICM is significantly associated increased contractile dyssynchrony assessed by rICA. This study suggests that especially left ventricular dyssynchrony in the anterior-inferior direction is associated with PICM, and pacing the right ventricular posterior septum resulted in the highest degree of anterior-inferior dyssynchrony. Quantification of left ventricular dyssynchrony by rICA provides important insights to the potential pathophysiology of PICM and the impact of right ventricular lead position.

Incidence of heart failure after pacemaker implantation: a nationwide Danish Registry-based follow-up study

Aims

The objective of the current study is to investigate the risk of heart failure (HF) after implantation of a pacemaker (PM) with a right ventricular pacing (RVP) lead in comparison to a matched cohort without a PM and factors associated with this risk.

Methods and results

All patients without a known history of HF who had a PM implanted with an RVP lead between 2000 and 2014 (n = 27 704) were identified using Danish nationwide registries. An age- and gender-matched control cohort (matched 1:5, n = 138 520) without PM and HF was identified to compare the risk. Outcome was the cumulative incidence of HF including fatal HF within the first 2 years of PM implantation, with all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) as competing risks. Due to violation of proportional hazards, the follow-up period was divided into three time-intervals: <30 days, 30–180 days, and >180 days–2 years. The cumulative incidence of HF including fatal HF was observed in 2937 (10.6%) PM patients. Risks for the three time-intervals were <30 days [hazard ratio (HR) 5.98, 95% CI 5.19–6.90], 30–180 days (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.71–1.98), and >180 days (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04–1.17). Among patients with a PM device, factors associated with increased risk of HF were male sex (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.24–1.43), presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29–2.09), and prior MI (1.77, 95% 1.50–2.09).

Conclusions

Pacemaker with an RVP lead is strongly associated with risk of HF specifically within the first 6 months. Patients with antecedent history of MI and CKD had substantially increased risk.