The importance of early evaluation after cardiac resynchronization therapy to redefine response: Pooled individual patient analysis from 5 prospective studies

Association Between use of an Adaptive Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Algorithm and Healthcare Utilization and Cost

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association between use of adaptive pacing on clinical and economic outcomes of CRT recipients in a real-world analysis.

BACKGROUND

The AdaptivCRTTM algorithm was shown in prior subgroup analyses of prospective trials to achieve clinical benefits, but a large prospective trial showed nonsignificant changes in the endpoint of mortality or heart failure hospitalizations.

METHODS

CRT-implanted patients from the Optum Clinformatics® database with ≥90 days of follow-up were included. Remote monitoring data was used to classify patients based on CRT setting - adaptive biventricular and left ventricular pacing (aCRT) vs. standard biventricular pacing (Standard CRT). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences between groups. Mortality, 30-day readmissions, healthcare utilization, and payer and patient costs were evaluated post-implantation.

RESULTS

This study included 2,412 aCRT and 1,638 Standard CRT patients (mean follow-up: 2.4 ± 1.4 years), with balanced baseline characteristics after adjustment. The aCRT group was associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI):0.80, 0.96]), fewer all-cause 30-day readmissions (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 0.87 [CI:0.81, 0.94]), and fewer all-cause and HF-related inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department (ED) visits. The aCRT cohort was also associated with lower all-cause outpatient payer-paid amounts and lower all-cause and HF-related inpatient and ED patient-paid amounts.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis of a large real-world cohort, use of an adaptive CRT algorithm was associated with lower mortality, reduced healthcare resource utilization, and lower payer and patient costs.

LAY SUMMARY

While cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves quality of life and clinical outcomes for certain heart failure patients, some patients do not respond to this therapy. Adaptive CRT algorithms (aCRT), such as AdaptivCRTTM, have been developed with the goal of improving effectiveness of CRT, and consequently, clinical and economic outcomes. This research study used a large database of administrative claims data - which contains information on patient demographics, diagnoses, healthcare services received, mortality, and cost data - to compare clinical and economic outcomes between CRT patients with the aCRT algorithm turned on (aCRT group) and CRT patients with the aCRT algorithm turned off (standard CRT group). Statistical methods were used to adjust for baseline differences between the aCRT group and standard CRT groups. Ultimately, the aCRT group was found to have a lower risk of all-cause mortality, fewer all-cause 30-day readmissions, fewer hospital visits (including inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department visits), and lower costs to payers and patients for specific types of costs.

Imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: part 1-imaging before and during device implantation. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC

More than 500 000 cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are implanted in the European Society of Cardiology countries each year. The role of cardiovascular imaging in patients being considered for CIED is distinctly different from imaging in CIED recipients. In the former group, imaging can help identify specific or potentially reversible causes of heart block, the underlying tissue characteristics associated with malignant arrhythmias, and the mechanical consequences of conduction delays and can also aid challenging lead placements. On the other hand, cardiovascular imaging is required in CIED recipients for standard indications and to assess the response to device implantation, to diagnose immediate and delayed complications after implantation, and to guide device optimization. The present clinical consensus statement (Part 1) from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, provides comprehensive, up-to-date, and evidence-based guidance to cardiologists, cardiac imagers, and pacing specialists regarding the use of imaging in patients undergoing implantation of conventional pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and resynchronization therapy devices. The document summarizes the existing evidence regarding the use of imaging in patient selection and during the implantation procedure and also underlines gaps in evidence in the field. The role of imaging after CIED implantation is discussed in the second document (Part 2).

The impact of chronotropic incompetence on atrioventricular conduction times in heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

Intrinsic atrioventricular (AV) conduction is used to optimize AV intervals with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in most device algorithms. Atrial pacing and heart rate affect conduction times, but little is known regarding differeces among chronotropic incompetent(CI) and competent(CC) patients to guide programming.

METHODS

RAVE was a multicenter prospective trial of CRT patients. Heart rate was increased with incremental atrial pacing and with submaximal exercise. According to the maximal heart rate achieved during exercise, patients were classified as either CI or CC. For CI patients, an additional symptom-limited exercise with rate-adaptive pacing activated was performed. Intracardiac intervals were measured from the implantable lead electrograms in multiple postures.

RESULTS

There were 12 subjects with CI and 24 with CC. With atrial pacing, AV interval immediately increased and gradually increased with incremental atrial pacing in all patients. However, the changes in the atrial to right ventricular (ARV) and atrial to left ventricular (ALV) intervals with increasing atrial pacing rates were about threefold greater in CI patients compared to CC patients (24.3 ± 28.9 vs. 7.2 ± 5.5 ms/10 bpm for ARV and 22.7 ± 25.6 vs. 7.1 ± 5.7 ms/10 bpm for ALV in the standing position, p < 0.05). In CI pacing with rate-adaptive pacing during exercise, AV interval changes with paced heart rate were variable.

CONCLUSIONS

The AV response to overdrive atrial pacing at rest may provide a simple means of identifying chronotropic competence in CRT patients. For patients with CI, who often require rate-adaptive atrial pacing, rate-adaptive AV algorithms should be adjusted individually.

Cardiac magnetic resonance-derived myocardial scar is associated with echocardiographic response and clinical prognosis of left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but the impact of myocardial substrate on its effect is poorly understood. This study aims to assess the association of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived scar burden and the response of CRT via LBBAP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with CRT indications who underwent CMR examination and successful LBBAP-CRT were retrospectively analysed. Cardiac magnetic resonance late gadolinium enhancement was used for scar assessment. Echocardiographic reverse remodelling and composite outcomes (defined as all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization) were evaluated. The echocardiographic response was defined as a ≥15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume. Among the 54 patients included, LBBAP-CRT resulted in a 74.1% response rate. The non-responders had higher global, septal, and lateral scar burden (all P < 0.001). Global, septal, and lateral scar percentage all predicted echocardiographic response [area under the curve (AUC): 0.857, 0.864, and 0.822; positive likelihood ratio (+LR): 9.859, 5.594, and 3.059; and negative likelihood ratio (-LR): 0.323, 0.233, and 0.175 respectively], which was superior to QRS morphology criteria (Strauss left bundle branch abnormality: AUC: 0.696, +LR 2.101, and -LR 0.389). After a median follow-up time of 20.3 (11.5-38.7) months, higher global, lateral and septal scar burdens were all predictive of the composite outcome (hazard ratios: 4.996, 7.019, and 4.741, respectively; P's < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lower scar burden was associated with higher response rate of LBBAP-CRT. The pre-procedure CMR scar evaluation provides further useful information to identify potential responders and clinical outcomes.

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.

Adaptive versus conventional cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure (AdaptResponse): a global, prospective, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Continuous automatic optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), stimulating only the left ventricle to fuse with intrinsic right bundle conduction (synchronised left ventricular stimulation), might offer better outcomes than conventional CRT in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and normal atrioventricular conduction. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of adaptive CRT versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure with intact atrioventricular conduction and left bundle branch block.

METHODS

This global, prospective, randomised controlled trial was done in 227 hospitals in 27 countries across Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with class 2-4 heart failure, an ejection fraction of 35% or less, left bundle branch block with QRS duration of 140 ms or more (male patients) or 130 ms or more (female patients), and a baseline PR interval 200 ms or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via block permutation to adaptive CRT (an algorithm providing synchronised left ventricular stimulation) or conventional biventricular CRT using a device programmer. All patients received device programming but were masked until procedures were completed. Site staff were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were collected and reported in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02205359, and is closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 5, 2014, and Jan 31, 2019, of 3797 patients enrolled, 3617 (95·3%) were randomly assigned (1810 to adaptive CRT and 1807 to conventional CRT). The futility boundary was crossed at the third interim analysis on June 23, 2022, when the decision was made to stop the trial early. 1568 (43·4%) of 3617 patients were female and 2049 (56·6%) were male. Median follow-up was 59·0 months (IQR 45-72). A primary outcome event occurred in 430 of 1810 patients (Kaplan-Meier occurrence rate 23·5% [95% CI 21·3-25·5] at 60 months) in the adaptive CRT group and in 470 of 1807 patients (25·7% [23·5-27·8] at 60 months) in the conventional CRT group (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·01; p=0·077). System-related adverse events were reported in 452 (25·0%) of 1810 patients in the adaptive CRT group and 440 (24·3%) of 1807 patients in the conventional CRT group.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with conventional CRT, adaptive CRT did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation in the included population of patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and intact AV conduction. Death and heart failure decompensation rates were low with both CRT therapies, suggesting a greater response to CRT occurred in this population than in patients in previous trials.

FUNDING

Medtronic.

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.

Association of interventricular activation delay with clinical outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Pacing at sites of longest interventricular delay has been associated with greater reverse remodeling in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the effects of pacing at such sites on clinical outcomes is less well studied.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the association between interventricular delay and clinical outcomes in CRT patients implanted with quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads.

METHODS

RALLY-X4 was a registry study of the Acuity X4 quadripolar LV leads. Interventricular delay was measured during unpaced basal rhythm from the right ventricular (RV) lead to the LV lead electrode (E1 to E4) chosen for CRT pacing. Patients were stratified by median RV-LV delay (80 ms) into short and long delay groups; they also were analyzed by multivariable modeling. The primary composite outcome measure was all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) at 18 months.

RESULTS

A total of 581 patients had complete RV-LV delay data. Mean LV ejection fraction was 27%, and 73% had typical left bundle branch block. Predictors of long RV-LV delay included female sex, left bundle branch block, and QRS duration >150 ms. Survival free of the primary outcome at 18-month follow-up was 87% in the long activation delay group compared with 77% in the short delay group (P = .0042). Multivariate analysis showed that RV-LV delay was an independent predictor of survival free of HFH (P = .028).

CONCLUSION

Among CRT patients with quadripolar LV pacing leads, longer baseline interventricular activation delay was significantly associated with the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and HFH.

Association of left ventricular remodeling with cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response stratified by left ventricular (LV) remodeling revealed differing mortality profiles for distinct patient cohorts. Measuring functional end points, as well as mortality, may better assess CRT efficacy and inform patient management. However, the association between LV remodeling and functional outcomes after CRT is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term CRT outcomes by extent of LV remodeling.

METHODS

REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular dysfunction (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00271154) was a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial of CRT. Subjects were classified on the basis of LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) change from baseline to 6 months post-CRT: worsened (increase), stabilized (0%-≤15% reduction), responder (>15%-<30% reduction), and super-responder (≥30% reduction). Subjects were evaluated annually for 5 years.

RESULTS

The analyses included 353 subjects randomized to CRT-ON arm. All-cause mortality was higher in the worsened group than in the other 3 response groups (29.8% vs 8.0%; P < .0001), with no difference in survival among those groups (P = .87). A significant interaction between the LVESV group and time was observed for health status and quality of life (P = .02 for both). The interaction was not significant for 6-minute hall walk (P = .79); however, super-responders had increased walk distance compared with the other 3 response groups (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Preventing further increase in LVESV with CRT was associated with reduced mortality, whereas functional measure improvement was associated with LV remodeling magnitude. These results support the consideration of functional and mortality end points to assess CRT efficacy and provide further evidence that the dichotomous "responder and nonresponder" classification should be modified.

Long-term outcomes in nonprogressors to cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Among patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), patients with a minimal change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have recently been defined as "nonprogressors" rather than as "nonresponders." Little is known regarding long-term outcomes of nonprogressors.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate outcomes in patients undergoing CRT on the basis of echocardiographically determined response status.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical charts of patients with an LVEF of ≤35% and a QRS duration of ≥120 ms undergoing CRT at the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center between 2003 and 2014. Response to CRT was defined on the basis of LVEF change as follows: super-responders ≥20%, responders 6%-19%, nonprogressors 0%-5%, and progressors <0%. Survival free of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation was compared on the basis of response classification.

RESULTS

A total of 1058 patients were included and had a mean follow-up 8.7 ± 5.4 years, over which time there were 606 end points (37 LVAD implants, 32 heart transplants, and 537 deaths). Survival free of LVAD and heart transplant differed significantly between response groups after CRT both in the mid-term (4 years) and in the long-term (8.7 ± 5.4 years), with super-responders achieving the best outcomes and progressors the worst (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, nonprogressors had superior outcomes to progressors (P = .02) at 4 years of follow-up. Over the duration of follow-up (8.7 ± 5.4 years), there was no significant difference in survival between those 2 groups (P = .18).

CONCLUSION

Nonprogressors to CRT have superior medium-term outcomes but similar long-term outcomes to progressors and inferior outcomes to responders and super-responders.

Electromechanical factors associated with favourable outcome in cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS

Electromechanical coupling in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is not fully understood. Our aim was to determine the best combination of electrical and mechanical substrates associated with effective CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were prospectively enrolled from two centres. Patients underwent 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), echocardiography, and anatomo-electromechanical mapping (AEMM). Remodelling was measured as the end-systolic volume (ΔESV) decrease at 6 months. CRT was defined effective with ΔESV ≤ -15%. QRS duration (QRSd) was measured from ECG. Area strain was obtained from AEMM and used to derive systolic stretch index (SSI) and total left-ventricular mechanical time. Total left-ventricular activation time (TLVAT) and transeptal time (TST) were derived from AEMM and ECG. Scar was measured from CMR. Significant correlations were observed between ΔESV and TST [rho = 0.42; responder: 50 (20-58) vs. non-responder: 33 (8-44) ms], TLVAT [-0.68; 81 (73-97) vs. 112 (96-127) ms], scar [-0.27; 0.0 (0.0-1.2) vs. 8.7 (0.0-19.1)%], and SSI [0.41; 10.7 (7.1-16.8) vs. 4.2 (2.9-5.5)], but not QRSd [-0.13; 155 (140-176) vs. 167 (155-177) ms]. TLVAT and SSI were highly accurate in identifying CRT response [area under the curve (AUC) > 0.80], followed by scar (AUC > 0.70). Total left-ventricular activation time (odds ratio = 0.91), scar (0.94), and SSI (1.29) were independent factors associated with effective CRT. Subjects with SSI >7.9% and TLVAT <91 ms all responded to CRT with a median ΔESV ≈ -50%, while low SSI and prolonged TLVAT were more common in non-responders (ΔESV ≈ -5%).

CONCLUSION

Electromechanical measurements are better associated with CRT response than conventional ECG variables. The absence of scar combined with high SSI and low TLVAT ensures effectiveness of CRT.

Rescue left bundle branch area pacing in coronary venous lead failure or nonresponse to biventricular pacing: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is effective in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and reduced left ventricular function. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been reported as an alternative option for CRT.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LBBAP in patients who failed conventional BVP because of coronary venous (CV) lead complications or who were nonresponders to BVP.

METHODS

At 16 international centers, LBBAP was attempted in patients with conventional CRT indication who failed BVP because of CV lead complications or lack of therapeutic response to BVP. Heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and death, echocardiographic outcomes, procedural data, pacing parameters, and lead complications including CV lead failure are reported.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successfully performed in 200 patients (CV lead failures 156; nonresponders 44) (age 68 ± 11 years; female 35%; LBBB 55%; right ventricular pacing 23%; ischemic cardiomyopathy 28%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy 63%; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35% in 80%). Procedural duration was 119.5 ± 59.6 minutes, and fluoroscopy duration was 25.7 ± 18.5 minutes. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.68 ± 0.35 V @ 0.45 ms and 10.4 ± 5 mV at implant, respectively, and remained stable during mean follow-up of 12 ± 10.1 months. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing from 170 ± 28 ms to 139 ± 25 ms (P <.001) with V₆ R-wave peak times of 85 ± 17 ms. LVEF improved from 29% ± 10% at baseline to 40% ± 12% (P <.001) during follow-up. The risk of death or HFH was lower in those with CV lead failure than in nonresponders (hazard ratio 0.357; 95% confidence interval 0.168-0.756; P = .007) CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a viable alternative to CRT in patients who failed conventional BVP due to CV lead failure or who were nonresponders.