The atrioventricular delay of cardiac resynchronization can be optimized hemodynamically during exercise and predicted from resting measurements

Pacing at accelerated heart rate during echocardiography-guided atrioventricular optimisation following cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Introduction

Although echo-guided atrioventricular optimisation (AVO) is standardly performed at rest, this approach may not provide optimal AV synchrony during daily activities.

Material and methods

The AVO protocol at one of two hospital campuses had been modified to be performed while pacing at an accelerated heart rate. We tested if this approach would improve the yield from AVO compared to the other campus, where AVO was performed at the intrinsic sinus rate.

Results

Between campuses, no significant differences were seen in demographics, chamber sizes, left ventricular ejection fraction, and diastolic function grade. Those having AVO at C2 were more likely to demonstrate “fusion prone” physiology (36% vs. 9%; p = 0.006) and were more likely to display either “truncation- or fusion-prone” physiology (58% vs. 27%; p = 0.007).

Conclusions

When AVO was performed at an accelerated heart rate, patients with “truncation-prone” or “fusion-prone” physiology were identified more readily.

Improving haemodynamic optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure

OBJECTIVE

Optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy using non-invasive haemodynamic parameters produces reliable optima when performed at high atrial paced heart rates. Here we investigate whether this is a result of increased heart rate or atrial pacing itself.

APPROACH

Forty-three patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy underwent haemodynamic optimization of atrioventricular (AV) delay using non-invasive beat-to-beat systolic blood pressure in three states: rest (atrial-sensing, 66  ±  11 bpm), slow atrial pacing (73  ±  12 bpm), and fast atrial pacing (94  ±  10 bpm). A 20-patient subset underwent a fourth optimization, during exercise (80  ±  11 bpm).

MAIN RESULTS

Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, quantifying information content mean  ±SE) was 0.20  ±  0.02 for resting sensed optimization, 0.45  ±  0.03 for slow atrial pacing (p   <  0.0001 versus rest-sensed), and 0.52  ±  0.03 for fast atrial pacing (p   =  0.12 versus slow-paced). 78% of the increase in ICC, from sinus rhythm to fast atrial pacing, is achieved by simply atrially pacing just above sinus rate. Atrial pacing increased signal (blood pressure difference between best and worst AV delay) from 6.5  ±  0.6 mmHg at rest to 13.3  ±  1.1 mmHg during slow atrial pacing (p   <  0.0001) and 17.2  ±  1.3 mmHg during fast atrial pacing (p   =  0.003 versus slow atrial pacing). Atrial pacing reduced noise (average SD of systolic blood pressure measurements) from 4.9  ±  0.4 mmHg at rest to 4.1  ±  0.3 mmHg during slow atrial pacing (p   =  0.28). At faster atrial pacing the noise was 4.6  ±  0.3 mmHg (p   =  0.69 versus slow-paced, p   =  0.90 versus rest-sensed). In the exercise subgroup ICC was 0.14  ±  0.02 (p   =  0.97 versus rest-sensed).

SIGNIFICANCE

Atrial pacing, rather than the increase in heart rate, contributes to ~80% of the observed information content improvement from sinus rhythm to fast atrial pacing. This is predominantly through increase in measured signal.

Atrioventricular dromotropathy: evidence for a distinctive entity in heart failure with prolonged PR interval?

Heart failure (HF) is often accompanied by atrioventricular (AV) conduction disturbance, represented by prolongation of the PR interval on the electrocardiogram. Studies suggest that PR prolongation exists in at least 10% of HF patients, and it seems more prevalent in the presence of prolonged QRS duration. A prolonged PR interval may result in elevated left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic pressure, diastolic mitral regurgitation, and reduced LV pump function. This seems especially the case in patients with heart disease, in whom it is associated with an increased risk for atrial fibrillation, advanced AV heart block, HF, and death. These findings point towards the importance of proper AV coupling in HF patients. A few studies, strongly differing in design, suggest that restoration of AV coupling in patients with PR prolongation by pacing improves cardiac function and clinical outcomes. These observations argue for AV-dromotropathy as a potential target for pacing therapy, but other studies show inconsistent results. Given its potential clinical implications, restoration of AV coupling by pacing warrants further investigation. Additional possible future research goals include assessing different techniques to measure compromised AV coupling, determine the best site(s) of ventricular pacing, and assess a potential influence of diastolic mitral regurgitation in the efficacy of such therapy.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: mechanisms of action and scope for further improvement in cardiac function

Aims

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may exert its beneficial haemodynamic effect by improving ventricular synchrony and improving atrioventricular (AV) timing. The aim of this study was to establish the relative importance of the mechanisms through which CRT improves cardiac function and explore the potential for additional improvements with improved ventricular resynchronization.

Methods and Results

We performed simulations using the CircAdapt haemodynamic model and performed haemodynamic measurements while adjusting AV delay, at low and high heart rates, in 87 patients with CRT devices. We assessed QRS duration, presence of fusion, and haemodynamic response. The simulations suggest that intrinsic PR interval and the magnitude of reduction in ventricular activation determine the relative importance of the mechanisms of benefit. For example, if PR interval is 201 ms and LV activation time is reduced by 25 ms (typical for current CRT methods), then AV delay optimization is responsible for 69% of overall improvement. Reducing LV activation time by an additional 25 ms produced an additional 2.6 mmHg increase in blood pressure (30% of effect size observed with current CRT). In the clinical population, ventricular fusion significantly shortened QRS duration (Δ-27 ± 23 ms, P < 0.001) and improved systolic blood pressure (mean 2.5 mmHg increase). Ventricular fusion was present in 69% of patients, yet in 40% of patients with fusion, shortening AV delay (to a delay where fusion was not present) produced the optimal haemodynamic response.

Conclusions

Improving LV preloading by shortening AV delay is an important mechanism through which cardiac function is improved with CRT. There is substantial scope for further improvement if methods for delivering more efficient ventricular resynchronization can be developed.

Clinical Trial Registration

Our clinical data were obtained from a subpopulation of the British Randomised Controlled Trial of AV and VV Optimisation (BRAVO), which is a registered clinical trial with unique identifier: NCT01258829, https://clinicaltrials.gov

British randomised controlled trial of AV and VV optimization ("BRAVO") study: rationale, design, and endpoints

Background

Echocardiographic optimization of pacemaker settings is the current standard of care for patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy. However, the process requires considerable time of expert staff. The BRAVO study is a non-inferiority trial comparing echocardiographic optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delay with an alternative method using non-invasive blood pressure monitoring that can be automated to consume less staff resources.

Methods/Design

BRAVO is a multi-centre, randomized, cross-over, non-inferiority trial of 400 patients with a previously implanted cardiac resynchronization device. Patients are randomly allocated to six months in each arm. In the echocardiographic arm, AV delay is optimized using the iterative method and VV delay by maximizing LVOT VTI. In the haemodynamic arm AV and VV delay are optimized using non-invasive blood pressure measured using finger photoplethysmography. At the end of each six month arm, patients undergo the primary outcome measure of objective exercise capacity, quantified as peak oxygen uptake (VO₂) on a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcome measures are echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular remodelling, quality of life score and N-terminal pro B-type Natriuretic Peptide (NT-pro BNP). The study is scheduled to complete recruitment in December 2013 and to complete follow up in December 2014.

Discussion

If exercise capacity is non-inferior with haemodynamic optimization compared with echocardiographic optimization, it would be proof of concept that haemodynamic optimization is an acceptable alternative which has the potential to be more easily implemented.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01258829

Cardiac resynchronization therapy and AV optimization increase myocardial oxygen consumption, but increase cardiac function more than proportionally

BACKGROUND

The mechanoenergetic effects of atrioventricular delay optimization during biventricular pacing ("cardiac resynchronization therapy", CRT) are unknown.

METHODS

Eleven patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB) underwent invasive measurements of left ventricular (LV) developed pressure, aortic flow velocity-time-integral (VTI) and myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO2) at 4 pacing states: biventricular pacing (with VV 0 ms) at AVD 40 ms (AV-40), AVD 120 ms (AV-120, a common nominal AV delay), at their pre-identified individualised haemodynamic optimum (AV-Opt); and intrinsic conduction (LBBB).

RESULTS

AV-120, relative to LBBB, increased LV developed pressure by a mean of 11(SEM 2)%, p=0.001, and aortic VTI by 11(SEM 3)%, p=0.002, but also increased MVO2 by 11(SEM 5)%, p=0.04. AV-Opt further increased LV developed pressure by a mean of 2(SEM 1)%, p=0.035 and aortic VTI by 4(SEM 1)%, p=0.017. MVO2 trended further up by 7(SEM 5)%, p=0.22. Mechanoenergetics at AV-40 were no different from LBBB. The 4 states lay on a straight line for Δexternal work (ΔLV developed pressure × Δaortic VTI) against ΔMVO2, with slope 1.80, significantly >1 (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Biventricular pacing and atrioventricular delay optimization increased external cardiac work done but also myocardial oxygen consumption. Nevertheless, the increase in cardiac work was ~80% greater than the increase in oxygen consumption, signifying an improvement in cardiac mechanoenergetics. Finally, the incremental effect of optimization on external work was approximately one-third beyond that of nominal AV pacing, along the same favourable efficiency trajectory, suggesting that AV delay dominates the biventricular pacing effect - which may therefore not be mainly "resynchronization".

Cardiac resynchronization therapy mechanisms in atrial fibrillation

This article examines how to assess the reliability of potential techniques for performing optimization of biventricular pacemakers in patients with atrial fibrillation. It explores the magnitude of improvement that is likely to be obtained with the optimization of biventricular pacing in this clinical setting and discusses the lessons that can be learned with regard to the mechanisms of action of biventricular pacing in the general heart failure population.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is certainly cardiac therapy, but how much resynchronization and how much atrioventricular delay optimization?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy has become a standard therapy for patients who are refractory to optimal medical therapy and fulfill the criteria of QRS >120 ms, ejection fraction <35% and NYHA class II, III or IV. Unless there is some other heretofore unrecognized effect of pacing, the benefits of atrio-biventricular pacing on hard outcomes observed in randomized trials can only be attributed to the physiological changes it induces such as increases in cardiac output and/or reduction in myocardial oxygen consumption leading to an improvement in cardiac function efficiency. The term “Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy” for biventricular pacing presupposes that restoration of synchrony (simultaneity of timing) between left and right ventricles and/or between walls of the left ventricle is the mechanism of benefit. But could a substantial proportion of these benefits arise not from ventricular resynchronization but from favorable shortening of AV delay (“AV optimization”) which cannot be termed “resynchronization” unless the meaning of the word is stretched to cover any change in timing, thus, rendering the word almost meaningless. Here, we examine the evidence on the relative balance of resynchronization and AV delay shortening as contributors to the undoubted clinical efficacy of CRT.

Shortening of atrioventricular delay at increased atrial paced heart rates improves diastolic filling and functional class in patients with biventricular pacing

Background

Use of rate adaptive atrioventricular (AV) delay remains controversial in patients with biventricular (Biv) pacing. We hypothesized that a shortened AV delay would provide optimal diastolic filling by allowing separation of early and late diastolic filling at increased heart rate (HR) in these patients.

Methods

34 patients (75 ± 11 yrs, 24 M, LVEF 34 ± 12%) with Biv and atrial pacing had optimal AV delay determined at baseline HR by Doppler echocardiography. Atrial pacing rate was then increased in 10 bpm increments to a maximum of 90 bpm. At each atrial pacing HR, optimal AV delay was determined by changing AV delay until best E and A wave separation was seen on mitral inflow pulsed wave (PW) Doppler (defined as increased atrial duration from baseline or prior pacemaker setting with minimal atrial truncation). Left ventricular (LV) systolic ejection time and velocity time integral (VTI) at fixed and optimal AV delay was also tested in 13 patients. Rate adaptive AV delay was then programmed according to the optimal AV delay at the highest HR tested and patients were followed for 1 month to assess change in NYHA class and Quality of Life Score as assessed by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire.

Results

81 AV delays were evaluated at different atrial pacing rates. Optimal AV delay decreased as atrial paced HR increased (201 ms at 60 bpm, 187 ms at 70 bpm, 146 ms at 80 bpm and 123 ms at 90 bpm (ANOVA F-statistic = 15, p = 0.0010). Diastolic filling time (P < 0.001 vs. fixed AV delay), mitral inflow VTI (p < 0.05 vs fixed AV delay) and systolic ejection time (p < 0.02 vs. fixed AV delay) improved by 14%, 5% and 4% respectively at optimal versus fixed AV delay at the same HR. NYHA improved from 2.6 ± 0.7 at baseline to 1.7 ± 0.8 (p < 0.01) 1 month post optimization. Physical component of Quality of Life Score improved from 32 ± 17 at baseline to 25 ± 12 (p < 0.05) at follow up.

Conclusions

Increased heart rate by atrial pacing in patients with Biv pacing causes compromise in diastolic filling time which can be improved by AV delay shortening. Aggressive AV delay shortening was required at heart rates in physiologic range to achieve optimal diastolic filling and was associated with an increase in LV ejection time during optimization. Functional class improved at 1 month post optimization using aggressive AV delay shortening algorithm derived from echo-guidance at the time of Biv pacemaker optimization.

The acute effects of changes to AV delay on BP and stroke volume: potential implications for design of pacemaker optimization protocols

BACKGROUND

The AV delay optimization of biventricular pacemakers (cardiac resynchronization therapy) may maximize hemodynamic benefit but consumes specialist time to conduct echocardiographically. Noninvasive BP monitoring is a potentially automatable alternative, but it is unknown whether it gives the same information and similar precision (signal/noise ratio). Moreover, the immediate BP increment on optimization has been reported to decay away: it is unclear whether this is the result of an (undesirable) decrease in stroke volume or a (desirable) compensatory relief of peripheral vasoconstriction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To discriminate between these alternative mechanisms, we measured simultaneous beat-to-beat stroke volume (flow) using Doppler echocardiography, and BP using finger photoplethysmography, during and after AV delay changes from 40 to 120 ms in 19 subjects with cardiac pacemakers. BP and stroke volume both increased immediately (P<0.001, within 1 heartbeat). BP showed a clear decline a few seconds later (average rate, -0.65 mm Hg/beat; r=0.95 [95% CI, 0.86-0.98]); in contrast, stroke volume did not decline (P=0.87). The immediate BP increment correlated strongly with the stroke volume increment (r=0.74, P<0.001). The signal/noise ratio was 3-fold better for BP than stroke volume (6.8±3.5 versus 2.3±1.4; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Improving AV delay immediately increases BP, but the effect begins to decay within a few seconds. Reassuringly, this is because of compensatory vasodilatation rather than reduction in cardiac function. Pacemaker optimization will never be reliable unless there is an adequate signal/noise ratio. Using BP rather than Doppler minimizes noise. The early phase (before vascular compensation) has the richest signal lode.

Electrogram-based optimal atrioventricular and interventricular delays of cardiac resynchronization change individually during exercise

BACKGROUND

Limited data suggest that optimal atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delays are different at rest than during exercise in patients with heart failure. We assessed the feasibility and reproducibility of an electrogram-based method of optimization called QuickOpt at rest and during exercise.

METHODS

Patients with a St Jude Medical cardiac resynchronization therapy implantable cardioverter-defibrillator were subjected to a graded treadmill test, and QuickOpt was repeatedly measured prior to, during, and after the exercise.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (16 males, aged 67.4 ± 7.7 years) participated. At rest, delays (in ms) were 110.4 ± 20.1 for sensed AV delay and -70 (LV pacing first) to +20 (RV pacing first) for VV delay. The changes in QuickOpt-derived delays at rest were not significant despite change in body position. During exercise, QuickOpt-derived AV delays did not change in 11 patients, were shorter during peak exercise in 8 patients, and were longer in 3 patients (average value during peak exercise was 126.5 ± 15.8 ms, P = 0.04 compared to baseline). The QuickOpt-derived VV delay gradually shifted toward earlier right ventricular pacing during exercise in 19 patients, while no changes were seen in 3 patients, and a shift occurred toward earlier left ventricular pacing in 2 patients (average value during peak exercise was -30.7 ± 22.2; P = 0.001 compared to baseline). There was no correlation between changes in the QuickOpt-derived AV and VV delays and heart rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of electrogram-based algorithm is feasible both at rest and during exercise. The results are reproducible. QuickOpt-derived AV and VV delays individually change during exercise.

Primary Results From the SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (SMART-AV) Trial

Background

One variable that may influence cardiac resynchronization therapy response is the programmed atrioventricular (AV) delay. The SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (SMART-AV) Trial prospectively randomized patients to a fixed empirical AV delay (120 milliseconds), echocardiographically optimized AV delay, or AV delay optimized with SmartDelay, an electrogram-based algorithm.

Methods and Results

A total of 1014 patients (68% men; mean age, 66±11 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 25±7%) who met enrollment criteria received a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, and 980 patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio. All patients were programmed (DDD-60 or DDDR-60) and evaluated after implantation and 3 and 6 months later. The primary end point was left ventricular end-systolic volume. Secondary end points included New York Heart Association class, quality-of-life score, 6-minute walk distance, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The medians (quartiles 1 and 3) for change in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months for the SmartDelay, echocardiography, and fixed arms were −21 mL (−45 and 6 mL), −19 mL (−45 and 6 mL), and −15 mL (−41 and 6 mL), respectively. No difference in improvement in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months was observed between the SmartDelay and echocardiography arms ( P =0.52) or the SmartDelay and fixed arms ( P =0.66). Secondary end points, including structural (left ventricular end-diastolic volume and left ventricular ejection fraction) and functional (6-minute walk, quality of life, and New York Heart Association classification) measures, were not significantly different between arms.

Conclusions

Neither SmartDelay nor echocardiography was superior to a fixed AV delay of 120 milliseconds. The routine use of AV optimization techniques assessed in this trial is not warranted. However, these data do not exclude possible utility in selected patients who do not respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT00677014.

SmartDelay determined AV optimization: a comparison of AV delay methods used in cardiac resynchronization therapy (SMART-AV): rationale and design

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for patients with moderate-to-severely symptomatic heart failure, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and ventricular conduction delay is established. However, some patients do not demonstrate clinical improvement following CRT. It is unclear whether systematic optimization of the programmed atrioventricular (AV) delay improves the rate of clinical response.

METHODS

SMART-AV is a randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, three-armed trial that will investigate the effects of optimizing AV delay timing in heart failure patients receiving CRT + defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy. A minimum of 950 patients will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio using randomly permuted blocks within each center programmed to either DDD or DDDR with a lower rate of 60. The study will include echocardiographic measurements of volumes and function [e.g., left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV)], biochemical measurements of plasma biomarker profiles, and functional measurements (e.g., 6-minute hall walk) in CRT-D patients who are enrolled and randomized to fixed AV delay (i.e., 120 ms), AV delay determined by electrogram-based SmartDelay, or an AV delay determined by echocardiography (i.e., mitral inflow). Patients will be evaluated prior to initiation of CRT, 3 and 6 months post-implant. The primary endpoint is the relative change in LVESV at 6 months between the groups. Patient enrollment commenced in May 2008 and the study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov.

CONCLUSION

SMART-AV is a randomized, clinical trial designed to evaluate three different methods of AV delay optimization to determine whether systematic AV optimization is beneficial for patients receiving CRT for 6 months post-implant.

Echocardiographic optimization of the atrioventricular and interventricular intervals during cardiac resynchronization

An optimized atrioventricular (AV) interval can maximize the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). If programmed poorly, it may curtail beneficial effects of CRT. AV optimization will not convert non-responder to responder, but may convert under-responder to improved status. There are many echocardiographic techniques for AV optimization but there is no universally accepted gold standard. The optimal AV delay varies with time, necessitating periodic re-evaluation. As the optimal AV delay may lengthen on exercise, a rate-adaptive AV delay should not be routinely programmed. Intra- and interatrial conduction delays may require AV junctional ablation when AV optimization is impossible in patients with a poor clinical response. Fusion with the spontaneous QRS complex may be acceptable on a trial basis to seek a better clinical response or with a short PR interval. Routine VV optimization is presently controversial but programming may prove beneficial in some patients with a suboptimal CRT response where no cause is found. It may partially compensate for less than optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position and may correct for heterogeneous ventricular activation including a prolonged LV latency interval and slow conduction (scarring) near the LV pacing site. VV timing is generally programmed using the aortic velocity-time integral, and long-term variations of the optimal value necessitate periodic re-evaluation.