Defining left bundle branch block-Is this a roadblock to CRT delivery?

Standard care vs. TRIVEntricular pacing in Heart Failure (STRIVE HF): a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial of triventricular pacing vs. conventional biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intermediate QRS left bundle branch block

AIMS

To determine whether triventricular (TriV) pacing is feasible and improves CRT response compared to conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and intermediate QRS prolongation (120-150 ms).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between October 2015 and November 2019, 99 patients were recruited from 11 UK centres. Ninety-five patients were randomized 1:1 to receive TriV or BiV pacing systems. The primary endpoint was feasibility of TriV pacing. Secondary endpoints assessed symptomatic and remodelling response to CRT. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. In the TriV group, 43/46 (93.5%) patients underwent successful implantation vs. 47/49 (95.9%) in the BiV group. Feasibility of maintaining CRT at 6 months was similar in the TriV vs. BiV group (90.0% vs. 97.7%, P = 0.191). All-cause mortality was similar between TriV vs. BiV groups (4.3% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.678). There were no significant differences in echocardiographic LV volumes or clinical composite scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups.

CONCLUSION

Implantation of two LV leads to deliver and maintain TriV pacing at 6 months is feasible without significant complications in the majority of patients. There was no evidence that TriV pacing improves CRT response or provides additional clinical benefit to patients with LBBB and intermediate QRS prolongation and cannot be recommended in this patient group.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02529410.

Fusion Pacing with Biventricular, Left Ventricular-only and Multipoint Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: Latest Evidence and Strategies for Use

Despite advances in the field of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), response rates and durability of therapy remain relatively static. Optimising device timing intervals may be the most common modifiable factor influencing CRT efficacy after implantation. This review addresses the concept of fusion pacing as a method for improving patient outcomes with CRT. Fusion pacing describes the delivery of CRT pacing with a programming strategy to preserve intrinsic atrioventricular (AV) conduction and ventricular activation via the right bundle branch. Several methods have been assessed to achieve fusion pacing. QRS complex duration (QRSd) shortening with CRT is associated with improved clinical response. Dynamic algorithm-based optimisation targeting narrowest QRSd in patients with intact AV conduction has shown promise in people with heart failure with left bundle branch block. Individualised dynamic programming achieving fusion may achieve the greatest magnitude of electrical synchrony, measured by QRSd narrowing.

Machine Learning of 12-Lead QRS Waveforms to Identify Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Patients With Differential Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves heart failure outcomes but has significant nonresponse rates, highlighting limitations in ECG selection criteria: QRS duration (QRSd) ≥150 ms and subjective labeling of left bundle branch block (LBBB). We explored unsupervised machine learning of ECG waveforms to identify CRT subgroups that may differentiate outcomes beyond QRSd and LBBB.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 946 CRT patients with conduction delay. Principal component analysis (PCA) dimensionality reduction obtained a 2-dimensional representation of preCRT 12-lead QRS waveforms. k-means clustering of the 2-dimensional PCA representation of 12-lead QRS waveforms identified 2 patient subgroups (QRS PCA groups). Vectorcardiographic QRS area was also calculated. We examined following 2 primary outcomes: (1) composite end point of death, left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant, and (2) degree of echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) change after CRT.

RESULTS

Compared with QRS PCA Group 2 (n=425), Group 1 (n=521) had lower risk for reaching the composite end point (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.38-0.53]; P<0.001) and experienced greater mean LVEF improvement (11.1±11.7% versus 4.8±9.7%; P<0.001), even among patients with LBBB with QRSd ≥150 ms (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.57]; P<0.001; mean LVEF change 12.5±11.8% versus 7.3±8.1%; P=0.001). QRS area also stratified outcomes but had significant differences from QRS PCA groups. A stratification scheme combining QRS area and QRS PCA group identified patients with LBBB with similar outcomes to non-LBBB patients (HR, 1.32 [95% CI, 0.93-1.62]; difference in mean LVEF change: 0.8% [95% CI, -2.1% to 3.7%]). The stratification scheme also identified patients with LBBB with QRSd <150 ms with comparable outcomes to patients with LBBB with QRSd ≥150 ms (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.67-1.29]; difference in mean LVEF change: -0.2% [95% CI, -2.7% to 3.0%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Unsupervised machine learning of ECG waveforms identified CRT subgroups with relevance beyond LBBB and QRSd. This method may assist in objective classification of bundle branch block morphology in CRT.