Cardiac resynchronization therapy and ventricular tachyarrhythmia burden

Risk stratification for ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy

INTRODUCTION

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator reduces mortality among patients with heart failure (HF) due to ischemic heart disease. Clinical trial data have called into question the benefit of an ICD in patients with HF due to nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). We developed a risk stratification score for ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA) among patients with NICM receiving a primary prevention ICD.

METHODS

The study population comprised 1515 patients with NICM who were enrolled in the landmark MADIT trials. Fine and Gray analysis was used to develop a model to predict the occurrence of VTAs and ICD therapies while accounting for the competing risk of non-arrhythmic mortality. External validation was carried out in the RAID Trial population.

RESULTS

Four risk factors associated with increased risk for VTA were identified: male sex, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤25%, no indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D), and Black race. A score was generated based on this model, and patients were stratified into low (N = 390), intermediate (N = 728), and high-risk (N = 387) groups. The 5-year cumulative incidences of VTA were 15%, 24%, and 42%, respectively. Application of score groups for the secondary endpoints of Fast VT or VF and Appropriate ICD Shock revealed similar findings. Recurrent event analysis yielded consistent results. The AUC in the validation cohort for the endpoint of Appropriate ICD Shock was 69.3.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that patients with NICM can be risk stratified using demographic and clinical variables and may be used when evaluating such patients for a primary prevention ICD.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure based on Strauss criteria for left bundle branch block

AIMS

The left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a strong predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, a significant number of patients do not respond to the treatment. The study sought to evaluate the impact of the stricter Strauss criteria for left bundle branch block (St-LBBB) on CRT response, hospitalizations, ventricular arrhythmia (VA) events and mortality.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on heart failure (HF) patients with LBBB admitted for CRT implantation. Patients were divided into two groups according to the fulfilment or not of St-LBBB criteria.

RESULTS

The study included 82 patients with ischaemic (ICM) and non-ischaemic (NICM) cardiomyopathy [46 (56%) with St-LBBB and 36 (44%) with non-St-LBBB]. Patients with St-LBBB showed higher CRT response rates compared with those with non-St-LBBB (P < 0.01), while the group with NICM exhibited the greatest benefit (P < 0.01). St-LBBB CRT responders displayed significantly lower rates of HF hospitalization (P < 0.0001) compared with the non-St-LBBB group. According to Kaplan-Meier time curves, this was primarily evident in patients with NICM (P < 0.0001). CRT responders displayed significantly fewer VA events (P < 0.001) and lower mortality rates (P < 0.0001) than non-responders. Kaplan-Meier estimates demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of VAs in NICM patients with St-LBBB (P = 0.049) compared with ICM patients with St-LBBB (P = 0.25). Lower mortality rates were observed in CRT responders than non-responders (P < 0.0001), with the group of NICM with St-LBBB criteria exhibiting the greatest benefit (P = 0.0238).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with NICM and St-LBBB present the greatest benefit concerning CRT response, HF hospitalizations, VA events and mortality. Although St-LBBB criteria seem to improve patient selection for CRT, more data are needed to elucidate the role of St-LBBB criteria in this setting.

Implications of ventricular arrhythmia after cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data are available on whether ventricular arrhythmia (VA) or shock therapy increases mortality. Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of VA, little is known about the prognostic value of VA among patients with CRT devices.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications of VA as a prognostic marker for CRT.

METHODS

We investigated 330 CRT patients within 1 year after CRT device implantation. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients had VA events. These patients had a significantly higher risk of the primary endpoint, even among CRT responders (P = .009). Fast VA compared to slow VA was associated with an increased risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-4.34; P = .035). Shock therapy was not associated with a primary endpoint (shock therapy vs antitachycardia pacing: HR 1.49; 95% CI 0.73-3.03; P = .269). The patients with VA had a lower prevalence of response to CRT (23 [53%] vs 202 [70%]; P = .031) and longer left ventricular paced conduction time (174 ± 23 ms vs 143 ± 36 ms; P = .003) than the patients without VA.

CONCLUSION

VA occurrence within 1 year was related to paced electrical delay and poor response to CRT. VA could be associated with poor prognosis among CRT patients.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP.

METHODS

The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model.

RESULTS

Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.

QRS Morphology and the Risk of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Recipients

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data on the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) on the risk of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia in heart failure patients.

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to assess whether QRS morphology is associated with risk of ventricular arrhythmias in CRT recipients.

METHODS

The study population comprised 2,862 patients implanted with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)/CRT-D for primary prevention who were enrolled in 5 landmark primary prevention ICD trials (MADIT-II [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial], MADIT-CRT [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy], MADIT-RIT [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduction in Inappropriate Therapy], MADIT-RISK [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial-RISK], and RAID [Ranolazine in High-Risk Patients With Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators]). Patients with QRS duration ≥130 ms were divided into 2 groups: those implanted with an ICD only vs CRT-D. The primary endpoint was fast ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) (defined as VT ≥200 beats/min or VF), accounting for the competing risk of death. Secondary endpoints included appropriate shocks, any sustained VT or VF, and the burden of fast VT/VF, assessed in a recurrent event analysis.

RESULTS

Among patients with left bundle branch block (n = 1,792), those with CRT-D (n = 1,112) experienced a significant 44% (P < 0.001) reduction in the risk of fast VT/VF compared with ICD-only patients (n = 680), a significantly lower burden of fast VT/VF (HR: 0.55; P = 0.001), with a reduced burden of appropriate shocks (HR: 0.44; P < 0.001). In contrast, among patients with non-left bundle branch block (NLBBB) (N = 1,070), CRT-D was not associated with reduction in fast VT/VF (HR: 1.33; P = 0.195). Furthermore, NLBBB patients with CRT-D experienced a statistically significant increase in the burden of fast VT/VF events compared with ICD-only patients (HR: 1.90; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest a potential proarrhythmic effect of CRT among patients with NLBBB. These data should be considered in patient selection for treatment with CRT.

Left bundle branch area pacing reduces epicardial dispersion of repolarization compared with biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Biventricular endocardial pacing (BiV-endo) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are novel methods of delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy. These techniques are associated with improved activation times and acute hemodynamic response compared with conventional biventricular epicardial pacing (BiV-epi); however, the effects on repolarization and arrhythmic risk are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of temporary BiV-epi, BiV-endo, and LBBAP on epicardial left ventricular (LV) repolarization using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi).

METHODS

Eleven patients indicated for cardiac resynchronization therapy underwent a temporary pacing protocol with ECGi. BiV-endo was delivered via endocardial stimulation of the LV lateral wall. LBBAP was delivered by pacing the LV septum. Epicardial LV repolarization time (LVRT-95; time taken for 95% of the LV to repolarize), LV RT dispersion, mean LV activation recovery interval (ARI), LV ARI dispersion, and RT gradients were calculated.

RESULTS

The protocol was completed in 10 patients. During LBBAP, there were significant reductions in LVRT-95 (94.9 ± 17.4 ms vs 125.0 ± 29.4 ms; P = .03) and LV RT dispersion (29.4 ± 6.3 ms vs 40.8 ± 11.4 ms; P = .015) compared with BiV-epi. In contrast, there were no significant differences between baseline, BiV-epi, or BiV-endo. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mean RT gradients between LBBAP and baseline rhythm (0.74 ± 0.22 ms/mm vs 1.01 ± 0.31 ms/mm; P = .07). There were no significant differences in mean LV ARI or LV ARI dispersion between groups.

CONCLUSION

Temporary LBBAP reduces epicardial dispersion of repolarization compared with conventional BiV-epi. Further study is required to determine whether these repolarization changes on ECGi translate into a reduced risk of ventricular arrhythmia in clinical practice.

Managing arrhythmia in cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Arrhythmia is an extremely common finding in patients receiving cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Despite this, in the majority of randomised trials testing CRT efficacy, patients with a recent history of arrhythmia were excluded. Most of our knowledge into the management of arrhythmia in CRT is therefore based on arrhythmia trials in the heart failure (HF) population, rather than from trials dedicated to the CRT population. However, unique to CRT patients is the aim to reach as close to 100% biventricular pacing (BVP) as possible, with HF outcomes greatly influenced by relatively small changes in pacing percentage. Thus, in comparison to the average HF patient, there is an even greater incentive for controlling arrhythmia, to achieve minimal interference with the effective delivery of BVP. In this review, we examine both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, addressing their impact on CRT, and discuss the available evidence regarding optimal arrhythmia management in this patient group. We review pharmacological and procedural-based approaches, and lastly explore novel ways of harnessing device data to guide treatment of arrhythmia in CRT.

Ventricular Tachycardia and ICD Therapy Burden With Catheter Ablation Versus Escalated Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation improves ventricular tachycardia (VT) event-free (time to event) survival in patients with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory VT and previous myocardial infarction (MI). The effects of ablation on recurrent VT and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy (burden) have yet to be investigated.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the VT and ICD therapy burden following treatment with either ablation or escalated AAD therapy among patients with VT and previous MI in the VANISH (Ventricular tachycardia AblatioN versus escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy in ISchemic Heart disease) trial.

METHODS

The VANISH trial randomized patients with previous MI and VT despite initial AAD therapy to either escalated AAD treatment or catheter ablation. VT burden was defined as the total number of VT events treated with ≥1 appropriate ICD therapy. Appropriate ICD therapy burden was defined as the total number of appropriate shocks or antitachycardia pacing therapies (ATPs) delivered. The Anderson-Gill recurrent event model was used to compare burden between the treatment arms.

RESULTS

Of the 259 enrolled patients (median age, 69.8 years; 7.0% women), 132 patients were randomized to ablation and 129 patients were randomized to escalated AAD therapy. Over 23.4 months of follow-up, ablation-treated patients had a 40% lower shock-treated VT event burden and a 39% lower appropriate shock burden compared with patients who received escalated AAD therapy (P <0.05 for all). A reduction in VT burden, ATP-treated VT event burden, and appropriate ATP burden among ablation patients was only demonstrated in the stratum of patients with amiodarone-refractory VT (P <0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with AAD-refractory VT and a previous MI, catheter ablation reduced shock-treated VT event burden and appropriate shock burden compared with escalated AAD therapy. There was also lower VT burden, ATP-treated VT event burden, and appropriate ATP burden among ablation-treated patients; however, the effect was limited to patients with amiodarone-refractory VT.

Ventricular Arrhythmias and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Women: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Causes of sex differences in incidence of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (SVAs) are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate sex-specific risk of SVAs and device therapies by balancing sex groups in relation to several baseline characteristics with the propensity score (PS).

METHODS

We used a large remote monitoring dataset from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds). Study endpoints were time to the first appropriate SVA, time to the first device therapy for SVA, and time to the first ICD shock. Results were compared between females and a PS-matched male subgroup.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 2,532 patients with an ICD or CRT-D (median age, 70 years), 488 patients (19.3%) were women. After selecting 488 men PS-matched for 19 variables relative to baseline demographics, implant indications, principal comorbidities, and concomitant therapy, yet the SVA rate at the 2.1-year median follow-up was significantly lower in women than in man (adjusted HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.51-0.81; P < 0.001). Women also showed a reduced risk of any device therapy (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.76; P < 0.001) and shocks (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.47-0.94; P = 0.021). Differences in sex-specific SVA risk profile were not confirmed in CRT-D patients (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.55-1.09; P = 0.14) nor in those with an ejection fraction <30% (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.52-1.23; P = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

After matching demographics, indications, principal comorbidities, and concomitant therapy, women still exhibited a lower SVA risk profile than men, except in the subgroups of CRT-D or/and ejection fraction <30%.

Impact of synchronized left ventricular pacing rate on risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias after cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

The adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) algorithm automatically produces synchronized left ventricular pacing (sLVP) with intrinsic atrioventricular conduction to improve clinical outcomes. However, relationship between sLVP percentage and risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT/VF) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of sLVP rate on VT/VF occurrence.

METHODS

In total, 1,419 device interrogation data from 42 consecutive patients who underwent new aCRT device implantation were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was the first time VT/VF episode after aCRT device implantation.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 34 months, 15 patients had VT/VF episodes. Patients were divided into a high sLVP (the average sLVP percentage of ≥ 51.5%, n = 27) or low sLVP group (< 51.5%, n = 15). The high sLVP group had a significantly lower VT/VF incidence (22% vs. 60%; p = 0.014) and an independent predictor for VT/VF occurrence on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.21; p = 0.007). LV ejection fraction improvements after 6 months (12.3 ± 8.7% vs. 2.8 ± 10.3%; p = 0.004) and 12 months (13.8 ± 9.3% vs. 6.2 ± 11.1%; p = 0.030) were significantly greater in the high sLVP group than in the low sLVP group. Age, PR interval, and left atrial diameter were significantly associated with the sLVP rate after aCRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with high sLVP percentage after aCRT had lower long-term risk of VT/VF incidence with a favorable response to CRT. A synchronized pacing algorithm using intrinsic conduction may prevent malignant arrhythmias, as well as recover cardiac functions.

Role of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Heart Failure With Contemporary Medical Therapy

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy is indicated in a subset of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection as primary prevention for sudden cardiac death. The advent of novel medical therapies including mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor in the past 2 decades has revolutionized heart failure with reduced ejection management. Current guideline-directed medical therapy has reduced all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death and confers a considerable improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction over a short period of time. However, there is limited evidence at present to suggest whether implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy continues to have the same benefit in sudden cardiac death prevention at current left ventricular ejection fraction cutoff indications for patients on contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection. In this review, the authors propose in lieu of current evidence that it is reasonable to reevaluate indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients on contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection.

Dispersion of repolarization increases with cardiac resynchronization therapy and is associated with left ventricular reverse remodeling

PURPOSE

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces ventricular activation times and electrical dyssynchrony, however the effect on repolarization is unclear. In this study, we sought to investigate the effect of CRT and left ventricular (LV) remodeling on dispersion of repolarization using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi).

METHODS

11 patients with heart failure and electrical dyssynchrony underwent ECGi 1-day and 6-months post CRT. Reconstructed epicardial electrograms were used to create maps of activation time, repolarization time (RT) and activation recovery intervals (ARI) and calculate measures of RT, ARI and their dispersion. ARI was corrected for heart rate (cARI).

RESULTS

Compared to baseline rhythm, LV cARI dispersion was significantly higher at 6 months (28.2 ± 7.7 vs 36.4 ± 7.2 ms; P = 0.03) but not after 1 day (28.2 ± 7.7 vs 34.4 ± 6.8 ms; P = 0.12). There were no significant differences from baseline to CRT for mean LV cARI or RT metrics. Significant LV remodeling (>15% reduction in end-systolic volume) was an independent predictor of increase in LV cARI dispersion (P = 0.04) and there was a moderate correlation between the degree of LV remodeling and the relative increase in LV cARI dispersion (R = -0.49) though this was not statistically significant (P = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

CRT increases LV cARI dispersion, but this change was not fully apparent until 6 months post implant. The effects of CRT on LV cARI dispersion appeared to be dependent on LV reverse remodeling, which is in keeping with evidence that the risk of ventricular arrhythmia after CRT is higher in non-responders compared to responders.

Endocardial left ventricular pacing

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure; however, 30–50% of patients fail to improve after implant. Endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing is an alternative therapy for patients who do not respond to conventional CRT or in whom placement of a lead via the coronary sinus is not possible. It enables pacing at a wide variety of sites, without restrictions due to coronary sinus anatomy, and there is evidence of superior electrical resynchronization and hemodynamic response compared with conventional epicardial CRT. In this article, we discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of endocardial LV pacing compared with conventional CRT, review the evidence for the delivery of endocardial LV pacing using both lead-based and leadless systems, and explore possible future directions of this novel technology.