Acute Hemodynamic Effect of a Novel Dual-Vein, Multisite Biventricular Pacing Configuration

BACKGROUND

Biventricular pacing (BVP) from multiple left ventricular (LV) sites could enhance the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by engaging a greater myocardial mass.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate the acute hemodynamic effect of various multisite pacing (MSP) configurations against conventional BVP.

METHODS

Twenty patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block (mean age: 59 ± 14 years; LV ejection fraction: 27% ± 6%; native QRS: 171 ± 16 milliseconds) were investigated during a routine CRT implant procedure. In addition to conventional right atrial and right ventricular leads, 2 quadripolar leads were placed in the distant coronary venous branches. LV hemodynamics was evaluated by using a micromanometer-tipped catheter during atrioventricular BVP with 4 LV lead configurations: single-lead conventional BVP; single-lead multipoint pacing; triventricular pacing from distal dipoles of 2 LV leads; and maximum MSP (MSP-Max) from 4 dipoles of 2 LV leads.

RESULTS

Compared with right atrial pacing, any BVP configuration produced a significant increase in the maximal LV diastolic pressure rise (LVdP/dTMax) (a median relative increase of 28% [IQR: 8%-45%], 25% [IQR: 18%-46%], 36% [IQR: 18%-54%], and 38% [IQR: 28%-58%], respectively; all, P < 0.001). MSP-Max but no other multisite BVP generated a significant increase of the maximal LVdP/dTMax than conventional BVP (P = 0.041). Increased LVdP/dTMax during MSP-Max was associated with greater LV diameter and lower LV ejection fraction, independently of the QRS width.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows the hemodynamic advantage of a novel dual-vein MSP-Max configuration that could be useful for CRT in patients with advanced LV remodeling.

Progress in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy and Optimisation

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) has become the cornerstone of heart failure (HF) treatment. Despite the obvious benefit from this therapy, an estimated 30% of CRT patients do not respond ("non-responders"). The cause of "non-response" is multi-factorial and includes suboptimal device settings. To optimise CRT settings, echocardiography has been considered the gold standard but has limitations: it is user dependent and consumes time and resources. CRT proprietary algorithms have been developed to perform device optimisation efficiently and with limited resources. In this review, we discuss CRT optimisation including the various adopted proprietary algorithms and conduction system pacing.

The evolving state of cardiac resynchronization therapy and conduction system pacing: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was proposed in the 1990s as a new therapy for patients with heart failure and wide QRS with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction despite optimal medical treatment. This review is aimed first to describe the rationale and the physiologic effects of CRT. The journey of the landmark randomized trials leading to the adoption of CRT in the guidelines since 2005 is also reported showing the high level of evidence for CRT. Different alternative pacing modalities of CRT to conventional left ventricular pacing through the coronary sinus have been proposed to increase the response rate to CRT such as multisite pacing and endocardial pacing. A new emerging alternative technique to conventional biventricular pacing, conduction system pacing (CSP), is a promising therapy. The different modalities of CSP are described (Hirs pacing and left bundle branch area pacing). This new technique has to be evaluated in clinical randomized trials before implementation in the guidelines with a high level of evidence.

Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Pacing: Where Have We Been and What Lies Ahead?

The history of cardiac pacing dates back to the 1930s with externalized pacing and has evolved to incorporate transvenous, multi-lead, or even leadless devices. Annual implantation rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices have increased since the introduction of the implantable system, likely related to expanding indications, and increasing global life expectancy and aging demographics. Here, we summarize the relevant literature on cardiac pacing to demonstrate the enormous impact it has had within the field of cardiology. Further, we look forward to the future of cardiac pacing, including conduction system pacing and leadless pacing strategies.

Left bundle branch area pacing: A promising modality for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recognized as the first-line management for patients with heart failure (HF) and conduction disorders. As a conventional mode for delivering CRT, biventricular pacing (BVP) improves cardiac function and reduces HF hospitalizations and mortality, but there are still limitations given the high incidence of a lack of response rates. Alternative pacing methods are needed either for primary or rescue therapy. In recent years, conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological pacing modality for simultaneous stimulation of the ventricles, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). CSP activates the His-Purkinje system, allowing normal ventricular stimulation. However, HBP is technically challenging with a relatively low success rate, high pacing threshold, and failure to correct distal conduction abnormalities. Therefore, LBBP stands out as a novel ideal physiological pacing modality for CRT. Several non-randomized studies compared the feasibility and safety of LBBP with BVP and concluded that LBBP is superior to BVP for delivering CRT with a narrower QRS and greater improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Concurrently, some studies showed lower and stable pacing thresholds and greater improvement of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, as well as better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. LBBP ensures better ventricular electromechanical resynchronization than BVP. In this review, we discuss current knowledge of LBBP, compare LBBP with BVP, and explore the potential of LBBP to serve as an alternative primary therapy to realize cardiac resynchronization.

The Interplay of PR Interval and AV Pacing Delays Used for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure Patients: Association with Clinical Response in a Retrospective Analysis of a Large Observational Study

Background. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a treatment for heart failure (HF) patients with prolonged QRS and impaired left ventricular (LV) systolic function. We aim to evaluate how the baseline PR interval is associated with outcomes (all-cause death or HF hospitalizations) and LV reverse remodeling (>15% relative reduction in LV end-systolic volume). Methods. Among 2224 patients with CRT defibrillators, 1718 (77.2%) had a device programmed at out-of-the-box settings (sensed AV delay: 100 ms and paced AV delay: 130 ms). Results. In this cohort of 1718 patients (78.7% men, mean age 66 years, 71.6% in NYHA class III/IV, LVEF = 27 ± 6%), echocardiographic assessment at 6-month follow-up showed that LV reverse remodeling was not constant as a function of the PR interval; in detail, it occurred in 56.4% of all patients but was more frequent (76.6%) in patients with a PR interval of 160 ms. In a median follow-up of 20 months, the endpoint of death or HF hospitalizations occurred in 304/1718 (17.7%) patients; in the multivariable regression analysis it was significantly less frequent when the PR interval was between 150 and 170 ms (hazard ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63−0.99, p = 0.046). The same PR range was associated with higher probability of CRT response (odds ratio = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.41−4.47, p = 0.002). Conclusions. In a large population of CRT patients, with fixed AV pacing delays, specific PR intervals are associated with significant benefits in terms of LV reverse remodeling and lower morbidity. These observational data suggest the importance of optimizing pacing programming as a function of the PR interval to maximize CRT response and patient outcome.

What Have We Learned in the Last 20 Years About CRT Non-Responders?

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become well established in the treatment of heart failure, the management of patients who do not respond after CRT remains a key challenge. This review will summarize what we have learned about non-responders over the last 20 years and discuss methods for optimizing response, including the introduction of novel therapies.

Pacing Optimized by Left Ventricular dP/dtmax

Left ventricular (LV) dP/dt_max provides a sensitive measure of the acute hemodynamic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and can predict reverse remodeling on echocardiography. Its use to guide LV lead placement has been shown to improve outcomes in a multicenter randomized trial. Given the invasive protocol required for measurement, it is unlikely to be universally beneficial for patients undergoing CRT but may be useful for patients who do not respond to conventional CRT, or in those who have borderline indications or risk factors for non-response. In such cases, LV dP/dt_max may help guide LV lead placement, optimize device programming, and select the best alternative method of delivering CRT, such endocardial LV pacing or conduction system pacing.

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.

Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

Multi-lead pacing is a potential therapy to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by providing rapid activation of the myocardium from multiple sites. Here, we perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of multi-lead pacing.

Methods and results

A literature search was performed which identified 251 unique records. After screening, 6 studies were found to meet inclusion criteria, with 415 patients included in the meta-analysis. Four studies performed multi-lead pacing with two left ventricular (LV) leads and one right ventricular (RV) lead. One study used two RV leads and one LV lead, and one study used both configurations. There was no difference between multi-lead pacing and conventional CRT in LV end-systolic volume [mean difference (MD) -0.54 mL, P = 0.93] or LV ejection fraction (MD 1.42%, P = 0.40). There was a borderline significant improvement in Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score for multi-lead pacing vs. conventional CRT (MD -4.46, P = 0.05), but the difference was not significant when only patients receiving LV-only multi-lead pacing were included (MD -3.59, P = 0.25). There was also no difference between groups for 6-min walk test (MD 15.06 m, P = 0.38) or New York Heart Association class at follow-up [odds ratio (OR) 1.49, P = 0.24]. There was no difference in mortality between groups (OR 1.11, P = 0.77).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis does not support the use of multi-lead pacing for CRT delivery. However, significant variation between studies was noted, and therefore a benefit for multi-lead pacing in select patients cannot be excluded, and further investigation may be warranted.

Multipoint pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Multipoint pacing (MPP) has been proposed as an effective way to improve cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) response. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of CRT delivered via MPP compared to conventional CRT.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from inception to January 2021 for studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, comparing MPP to conventional CRT with a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Randomised and nonrandomised studies were assessed for relevant efficacy data including echocardiographic (left ventricular end systolic volume [LVESV] and ejection fraction) or functional changes (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class/Clinical Composite Score). Subgroup analyses were performed by study design and programming type.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies with a total of 1390 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, MPP demonstrated greater echocardiographic improvement than conventional CRT in nonrandomised studies (odds ratio [OR]: 5.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [3.05-9.33], p < .001), however, was not significant in randomised studies (OR: 1.86, 95% CI: [0.91-3.79], p = .086). There was no significant difference in LVESV reduction >15% (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: [0.69-5.55], p = .20) or improvement by ≥1 NYHA class (OR: 2.49, 95% CI: [0.74-8.42], p = .141) when comparing MPP to conventional CRT. In a sub analysis, MPP programmed by widest anatomical separation (MPP-AS) signalled greater efficacy, however, only 120 patients were included in this analysis.

CONCLUSION

Overall MPP was more efficacious in nonrandomised studies, and not superior when assessed in randomised studies. There was considerable heterogeneity in study design making overall interpretation of results challenging. Widespread MPP programming in all CRT patients is currently not justified. Further large, randomised studies with patient-specific programming may clarify its effectiveness.

Single- and multi-site pacing strategies for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy: impact on device longevity and therapy cost

BACKGROUND

Multiple left ventricular pacing strategies have been suggested for improving response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, these programming strategies may sometimes entail accepting configurations with high pacing threshold and accelerated battery drain. We assessed the feasibility of predefined pacing programming protocols, and we evaluated their impact on device longevity and their cost-impact.

METHODS

We estimated battery longevity in 167 CRT-D patients based on measured pacing parameters according to multiple alternative programming strategies: single-site pacing associated with lowest threshold, non-apical location, longest interventricular delay, and pacing from two electrodes. To determine the economic impact of each programming strategy, we applied the results of a model-based cost analysis using a 15-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Selecting the electrode with the lowest threshold resulted in a median device longevity of 11.5 years. Non-apical pacing and interventricular delay maximization were feasible in most patients and were obtained at the price of a few months of battery life. Device longevity of > 10 years was preserved in 87% of cases of non-apical pacing and in 77% on pacing at the longest interventricular delay. The mean reduction in battery life when the second electrode was activated was 1.5 years. Single-site pacing strategies increased the therapy cost by 4-6%, and multi-site pacing by 12-13%, in comparison with the lowest-cost scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern CRT-D systems ensure effective pacing and allow multiple optimization strategies for maximizing service life or for enhancing effectiveness. Single- or multi-site pacing strategies can be implemented without compromising device service life and at an acceptable increase in therapy cost.

Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of multipoint pacing therapy: MOre REsponse on Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with MultiPoint Pacing (MORE-CRT MPP-PHASE II)

BACKGROUND

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is beneficial in most heart failure patients, up to 40% do not respond to CRT. Data from the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) IDE trial and MORE-CRT MPP-PHASE I study suggest improved response in subjects in the MPP arm-programmed with wide left ventricular (LV) electrode anatomical separation (≥30 mm) and shortest timing delays of 5 milliseconds (MPP-AS)-compared with quadripolar biventricular (BiV) pacing.

STUDY DESIGN

The MORE-CRT MPP-PHASE II trial is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study to assess the 6-month impact of MPP programmed to mandated MPP-AS settings in subjects who do not respond to 6 months of BiV pacing (MPP OFF). Approximately 5,000 subjects with a standard CRT indication will be enrolled and implanted with a quadripolar CRT system (Abbott) capable of delivering MPP. Only BiV pacing is activated at implant. At 6 months, subjects classified as CRT nonresponders (<15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume) are randomized (1:1) to MPP or continued BiV pacing. The mandated MPP parameters (eg, MPP-AS) are programmed to subjects randomized to the MPP arm. At 12 months, the 2 groups will be compared to determine if there is a difference in CRT response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will evaluate whether MPP programmed to mandated MPP-AS settings improves LV reverse remodeling and clinical response to CRT in patients who fail to respond to 6 months of BiV pacing (www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02006069).

Complications associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrades versus de novo implantations

INTRODUCTION

A significant number of patients undergo upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). These patients tend to differ from individuals undergoing de novo CRT implantations both in terms of their baseline demographics and the etiology underlying their heart failure. Areas covered: There are several factors that need to be considered when upgrading patients to CRT, such as, venous patency. Potentially, these conditions can cause issues which may result in procedures being more difficult than de novo implantations. This article discusses these issues and compares the rates of procedural-related complications for CRT upgrades and de novo implantations. It discusses the proportion of patients that are likely to respond to CRT with each intervention. Expert commentary: Understanding the relative risks of CRT upgrades versus de novo implantations is important to help operators select the correct initial device and counsel patients accordingly. Growing experience with image-guided implantations and endocardial pacing may prove to be particularly relevant to patients undergoing CRT upgrades.

Cardiac resynchronization is pro-arrhythmic in the absence of reverse ventricular remodelling: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to reduce mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization but its effects on the rate of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) appears to be neutral. We hypothesize that CRT with LV epicardial stimulation is inherently pro-arrhythmic and increases VA rates in the absence of reverse ventricular remodelling while conferring an anti-arrhythmic effect in mechanical responders.

Methods and results

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we considered retrospective cohort, prospective cohort, and randomized controlled trials comparing VA rates between cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) non-responders, CRT-D responders and those with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) only. Studies were eligible if they defined CRT-D responders using a discrete left ventricular volumetric value as assessed by any imaging modality. Studies were identified through searching electronic databases from their inception to July 2017. We identified 2579 citations, of which 23 full-text articles were eligible for final analysis. Our results demonstrated that CRT-D responders were less likely to experience VA than CRT-D non-responders, relative risk (RR) 0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.58, P < 0.01] and also less than patients with ICD only: RR 0.59 (95% CI 0.50-0.69, P < 0.01). However, CRT-D mechanical non-responders had a greater likelihood of VA compared with ICD only, RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.92, P = 0.004).

Conclusion

CRT-D non-responders experienced more VA than CRT-D responders and also more than those with ICD only, suggesting that CRT with LV epicardial stimulation may be inherently pro-arrhythmic in the absence of reverse remodelling.

Multipoint pacing via a quadripolar left-ventricular lead: preliminary results from the Italian registry on multipoint left-ventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (IRON-MPP)

Aims

This registry was created to describe the experience of 76 Italian centres with a large cohort of recipients of multipoint pacing (MPP) capable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices.

Methods and results

A total of 507 patients in whom these devices had been successfully implanted were enrolled between August 2013 and May 2015. We analysed: (i) current clinical practices for the management of such patients, and (ii) the impact of MPP on heart failure clinical composite response and on the absolute change in ejection fraction (EF) at 6 months. Multipoint pacing was programmed to ‘ON’ in 46% of patients before discharge. Methods of optimizing MPP programming were most commonly based on either the greatest narrowing of the QRS complex (38%) or the electrical delays between the electrodes (34%). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were evaluated in 232 patients. These patients were divided into two groups according to whether MPP was programmed to ‘ON’ (n = 94) or ‘OFF’ (n = 138) at the time of discharge. At 6 months, EF was significantly higher in the MPP group than in the biventricular-pacing group (39.1 ± 9.6 vs. 34.7 ± 7.6%; P < 0.001). Even after adjustments, early MPP activation remained an independent predictor of absolute increase in LVEF of ≥5% (odds ratio 2.5; P = 0.001). At 6 months, an improvement in clinical composite score was recorded in a greater proportion of patients with MPP-ON than in controls (56 vs. 38%; P = 0.009). On comparing optimal MPP and conventional vectors, QRS was also seen to have decreased significantly (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study provides information that is essential in order to deal with the expected increase in the number of patients receiving MPP devices in the coming years. The results revealed different practices among centres, and establishing the optimal programming that can maximize the benefit of MPP remains a challenging issue. Compared with conventional CRT, MPP improved clinical status and resulted in an additional increase in EF.

Clinical Trial Registration

http://www.clinicaltrial.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT02606071.

Comparison of triple-site ventricular pacing versus conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with systolic heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

Background

Conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT, Bi‐V) is associated with no response in about 40% patients due to an insufficient resynchronization. Some studies showed triple‐site ventricular (Tri‐V) pacing had greater benefits compared with Bi‐V pacing, but the results of these studies were conflicting. We hypothesized that Tri‐V pacing had greater benefits on long‐term outcomes compared with Bi‐V pacing in patients with heart failure.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for clinical studies with related outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular geometry, functional capacity, and quality of life between Tri‐V pacing group and control group.

Results

Five trials with 251 patients were included in the analysis. Patients in the Tri‐V pacing group had a greater improvement in LVEF (WMD 4.04; 95% CI 2.15‐5.92, P < .001) and NYHA classes (WMD −0.27; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.11, P = .001) compared with control group. However, there were no significant differences in left ventricular geometry, six‐min walk distance, or Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score between the two groups. The subgroup analyses showed there might be a greater improvement in LVEF in the Tri‐V pacing group in patients with QRS duration ≥ 155 ms (WMD 5.60; 95% CI 3.09‐8.10, P < .001).

Conclusions

The present analysis suggests that Tri‐V pacing has greater benefits in terms of an improvement in LVEF and functional capacity in patients with systolic heart failure, especially in patients with the duration of QRS ≥ 155 ms.

Computational Modeling for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF) patients with an electrical substrate pathology causing ventricular dyssynchrony. However 40-50% of patients do not respond to treatment. Cardiac modeling of the electrophysiology, electromechanics, and hemodynamics of the heart has been used to study mechanisms behind HF pathology and CRT response. Recently, multi-scale dyssynchronous HF models have been used to study optimal device settings and optimal lead locations, investigate the underlying cardiac pathophysiology, as well as investigate emerging technologies proposed to treat cardiac dyssynchrony. However the breadth of patient and experimental data required to create and parameterize these models and the computational resources required currently limits the use of these models to small patient numbers. In the future, once these technical challenges are overcome, biophysically based models of the heart have the potential to become a clinical tool to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of HF.

Novel electrocardiographic dyssynchrony criteria improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Aims

We hypothesized that the greater the intra- or interventricular dyssynchrony (intraD, interD), the more effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is. We sought to improve patient selection for CRT by using novel ECG dyssynchrony criteria.

Methods and results

Left ventricular (LV) intraD was estimated by the absolute time difference between the intrinsicoid deflections (ID) in leads aVL and aVF divided by the QRS duration (QRSd): [aVLID - aVFID]/QRSd (%). InterD was estimated from the formula: [V5ID - V1ID]/QRSd (%). Their >25% value indicated electrical dyssynchrony present (ED+) and ≤25% value electrical dyssynchrony absent (ED-) diagnoses. Using the intraD + interD criteria (intra + interDC) together, if at least one of them indicated ED+ diagnosis, a final ED+ diagnosis, if both indicated ED- diagnosis, a final ED- diagnosis was made. Two authors, blinded to CRT response, retrospectively analysed pre-CRT ECGs of 124 patients with known CRT outcome. CRT response was defined as improvement of ≥ 1 NYHA class, being alive and having no hospitalizations for heart failure during 6 months of follow-up. 35/124 (28%) patients were non-responders (NRs), using the traditional criteria (TC) correct diagnosis was made in the remaining 89/124 (72%) responder (R) cases. The test accuracy (TA) of intra + interDC + TC [100/124 (81%), P < 0.001] was superior to that of TC [89/124 (72%)] due to its superior TA [36/43 (84%) vs. 29/43 (67%), respectively, P = 0.0156] in the non-specific intra-ventricular conduction disturbance (NICD) subgroup [43/124 (35%)]. In the left bundle branch block subgroup [70/124 (56%)] there was no between-criteria difference in TA.

Conclusion

The intra + interDC + TC predicts clinical response after CRT more accurately than TC alone, due to greater TA in the NICD subgroup.

Impact of quadripolar LV leads on heart failure hospitalization rates among patients implanted with CRT-D: data from the Israeli ICD Registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF); however, a third of patients are non-responders. The development of quadripolar left ventricular (LV) lead was shown, mainly in single manufactures' registry, to improve LV remodeling and overall mortality. However, limited reports exist on the impact of quadripolar LV leads on HF hospitalization rates in real-life cohorts. We evaluated the clinical outcomes associated with quadripolar LV leads in a large nation-wide registry including all patients implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D).

METHODS

Between July 2010 and October 2016, 2913 consecutive patients were implanted with a CRT-D and all were prospectively enrolled in the Israeli ICD Registry. Quadripolar LV leads were implanted in 973 (33.4%) patients during this period, and their clinical outcomes were compared to CRT-D recipients implanted with a bipolar LV lead. Primary endpoint was HF hospitalization rate.

RESULTS

Quadripolar leads were implanted more in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and for primary prevention indication and less in post-infarction patients and for secondary prevention of sudden death. Longer QRS duration was observed with quadripolar leads (147 ± 23 vs 143 ± 25; p < 0.001). Outcome event rate for 100 patient years revealed no difference in HF hospitalization rates between bipolar and quadripolar LV leads. Quadripolar lead implant led to lower cardiac mortality, with no influence on overall mortality. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in study endpoints between bipolar and quadripolar LV leads.

CONCLUSION

In a large real-life registry, implantation of quadripolar LV leads in patients with CRT-D did not influence HF hospitalization rates.

Heart failure study of multipoint pacing effects on ventriculoarterial coupling: Rationale and design of the HUMVEE trial

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established therapy for symptomatic heart failure (HF). Unfortunately, many recipients remain nonresponders. Studies have revealed the potential role of multipoint pacing (MPP) in improving response and outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of MPP against those of standard biventricular pacing (BVP) on (i) ventriculoarterial coupling (VAC) and energy efficiency of the failing heart, (ii) diastolic function, (iii) quality of life, and (iv) NT-proBNP levels and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) during a follow-up of 13 months. HUMVEE is a single-center, prospective, observational, crossover cohort study. Seventy-six patients with BVP indication will be implanted with a system able to deliver both pacing modes. BVP will be activated at implantation and optimized 1 month after. At 6 months postoptimization MPP will be activated and optimized. Optimization will be performed based on stroke volume maximization, as assessed by ultrasound. Laboratory measurements (GFR and NT-proBNP) and echocardiographic studies (VAC calculation, strain rate, diastolic function) will be performed at implantation, 6 months post-BVP optimization and at the end of 13 months of follow-up (6 months post-MPP optimization). Potential reduction in arrhythmogenesis by MPP will also be assessed. MPP is a pacing modality with the potential to improve HF patients' outcomes. The HUMVEE trial will attempt to associate any potential added beneficial effects of MPP over standard BVP with alterations in VAC and energy efficiency of the heart, thus uncovering a novel mechanistic link between MPP and improved outcomes in HF.

Longer Left Ventricular Electric Delay Reduces Mitral Regurgitation After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Mechanistic Insights From the SMART-AV Study (SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy)

BACKGROUND

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is associated with worse survival in those undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Left ventricular (LV) lead position in CRT may ameliorate mechanisms of MR. We examine the association between a longer LV electric delay (QLV) at the LV stimulation site and MR reduction after CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

QLV was assessed retrospectively in 426 patients enrolled in the SMART-AV study (SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in CRT). QLV was defined as the time from QRS onset to the first large peak of the LV electrogram. Linear regression and logistic regression were used to assess the association between baseline QLV and MR reduction at 6 months (absolute change in vena contracta width and odds of ≥1 grade reduction in MR). At baseline, there was no difference in MR grade, LV dyssynchrony, or LV volumes in those with QLV above versus below the median (95 ms). After multivariable adjustment, increasing QLV was an independent predictor of MR reduction at 6 months as reflected by an increased odds of MR response (odds ratio: 1.13 [1.03-1.25]/10 ms increase QLV; P=0.02) and a decrease in vena contracta width (P<0.001). At 3 months, longer QLV (≥median) was associated with significant decrease in LV end-systolic volume (ΔLV end-systolic volume -28.2±38.9 versus -4.9±33.8 mL, P<0.001). Adjustment for 3-month ΔLV end-systolic volume attenuated the association between QLV and 6-month MR reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing CRT, longer QLV was an independent predictor of MR reduction at 6 months and associated with interval 3-month LV reverse remodeling. These findings provide a mechanistic basis for using an electric-targeting LV lead strategy at the time of CRT implant.

Rationale and design of a randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy: The MPP Trial

BACKGROUND

Although the majority of Class III congestive heart failure (HF) patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) show a clinical benefit, up to 40% of patients do not respond to CRT. This paper reports the design of the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) trial, a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CRT using MPP compared to standard biventricular (Bi-V) pacing.

METHODS

A maximum of 506 patients with a standard CRT-D indication will be enrolled at up to 50 US centers. All patients will be implanted with a CRT-D system (Quartet LV lead Model 1458Q with a Quadra CRT-D, Abbott) that can deliver both MPP and Bi-V pacing. Standard Bi-V pacing will be activated at implant. At 3 months postimplant, patients in whom the echocardiographic parameters during MPP are equal or better than during Bi-V pacing are randomized (1:1) to either an MPP or Bi-V arm.

RESULTS

The primary safety endpoint is freedom from system-related complications at 9 months. Each patient's response to CRT will be evaluated using a heart-failure clinical composite score, consisting of a change in NYHA functional class, patient global assessment score, HF events, and cardiovascular death. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of responders in the MPP arm compared with the Bi-V arm between 3 and 9 months.

CONCLUSION

This trial seeks to evaluate whether MPP via a single quadripolar LV lead improves hemodynamic and clinical responses to CRT, both in clinical responders and nonresponders.

Comprehensive use of cardiac computed tomography to guide left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

Optimal lead positioning is an important determinant of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate cardiac computed tomography (CT) selection of the optimal epicardial vein for left ventricular (LV) lead placement by targeting regions of late mechanical activation and avoiding myocardial scar.

Methods

Eighteen patients undergoing CRT upgrade with existing pacing systems underwent preimplant electrocardiogram-gated cardiac CT to assess wall thickness, hypoperfusion, late mechanical activation, and regions of myocardial scar by the derivation of the stretch quantifier for endocardial engraved zones (SQUEEZ) algorithm. Cardiac venous anatomy was mapped to individualized American Heart Association (AHA) bull’s-eye plots to identify the optimal venous target and compared with acute hemodynamic response (AHR) in each coronary venous target using an LV pressure wire.

Results

Fifteen data sets were evaluable. CT-SQUEEZ–derived targets produced a similar mean AHR compared with the best achievable AHR (20.4% ± 13.7% vs 24.9% ± 11.1%; P = .36). SQUEEZ-derived guidance produced a positive AHR in 92% of target segments, and pacing in a CT-SQUEEZ target vein produced a greater clinical response rate vs nontarget segments (90% vs 60%).

Conclusion

Preprocedural CT-SQUEEZ–derived target selection may be a valuable tool to predict the optimal venous site for LV lead placement in patients undergoing CRT upgrade.

Occurrence of simultaneous cathodal-anodal capture with left ventricular quadripolar leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy: an electrocardiogram evaluation

AIMS

The occurrence of left ventricular (LV) anodal activation during pacing with modern multipolar cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems has never been reported. The aim of our study was to demonstrate, by means of electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis, the occurrence of simultaneous cathodal-anodal LV capture with quadripolar LV leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 10 first-time recipients of a CRT device equipped with a quadripolar LV lead. During follow-up, standard supine 12-lead ECGs were obtained in available cathode-to-anode LV pacing configurations with a pulse amplitude equal to twice the pacing threshold. The occurrence of simultaneous cathodal-anodal LV capture was defined as the presence of variations in electrocardiographic ventricular activation (EVA) when the distal tip (cathode)-to-device can (anode) pacing configuration was compared with the distal tip (cathode)-to-proximal ring (anode) configuration. In eight patients, we found differences in EVA when different LV sites were paced through the unipolar LV tip and unipolar LV ring configurations. In these patients, a difference in EVA was detected in 61.5% (59 of 96) of the ECG leads (marked difference in 31.3%, slight difference in 30.2%). Changes in EVA between unipolar tip-to-can and bipolar tip-to-ring pacing that were suggestive of cathodal-anodal LV capture were found in six patients. In these patients, a total of 30 (41.7%) ECG leads showed a difference in EVA (marked difference in 20.8%, slight difference in 20.8%).

CONCLUSION

In our experience, additional anodal capture by the proximal LV ring during LV pacing is provable in most recipients of a resynchronization device equipped with a multipolar LV lead.

Additional electrodes on the Quartet™ LV lead provide more programmable pacing options than bipolar and tripolar equivalents

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate any benefits to the number of viable pacing vectors and maximal spatial coverage with quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads when compared with tripolar and bipolar equivalents in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A meta-analysis of five previously published clinical trials involving the Quartet™ LV lead (St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA) was performed to evaluate the number of viable pacing vectors defined as capture thresholds ≤2.5 V and no phrenic nerve stimulation and maximal spatial coverage of viable vectors in CRT patients at pre-discharge (n = 370) and first follow-up (n = 355). Bipolar and tripolar lead configurations were modelled by systematic elimination of two and one electrode(s), respectively, from the Quartet lead. The Quartet lead with its four pacing electrodes exhibited the greatest number of pacing vectors per patient when compared with the best bipolar and the best tripolar modelled equivalents. Similarly, the Quartet lead provided the highest spatial coverage in terms of the distance between two furthest viable pacing cathodes when compared with the best bipolar and the best tripolar configurations (P < 0.05). Among the three modelled bipolar configurations, the lead configuration with the two most distal electrodes resulted in the highest number of viable pacing vectors. Among the four modelled tripolar configurations, elimination of the second proximal electrode (M3) resulted in the highest number of viable pacing options per patient. There were no significant differences observed between pre-discharge and first follow-up analyses.

CONCLUSION

The Quartet lead with its four electrodes and the capability to pace from four anatomical locations provided the highest number of viable pacing vectors at pre-discharge and first follow-up visits, providing more flexibility in device programming and enabling continuation of CRT in more patients when compared with bipolar and tripolar equivalents.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: How to Decrease Nonresponders

Nonresponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is still a major issue in therapy expansion. The description of fast, simple, cost-effective methods to optimize CRT could help in adapting pacing intervals to individual patients. A better understanding of the importance of appropriate patient selection, left ventricular lead placement, and device programming, together with a multidisciplinary approach and an optimal follow-up of the patients, may reduce the percentage of nonresponders.

Short-Term Availability of Viable Left Ventricular Pacing Sites with Quartet™ Quadripolar Leads

BACKGROUND Whether quadripolar leads can provide sufficient viable left ventricular pacing sites (LVPSs) for device optimization and multipoint pacing remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the acute and 3-month availability of viable LVPSs provided by a quadripolar LV pacing lead. MATERIAL AND METHODS A single-center cohort study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent a CRT implant with the QuartetTM LV lead under local guidelines. The availability of viable LVPSs was assessed at the pre-discharge and 3-month follow-up visit. Bipolar lead configurations, which served as the control group, were modeled by eliminating the 2 proximal electrodes on the Quartet™ LV lead. RESULTS A total of 24 patients were enrolled and finished 3-month follow-up. The mean follow-up period was 93±3 days. At pre-discharge, the Quartet™ LV lead provided more viable LVPSs compared with the bipolar equivalents (median 3 [IQR 2-4] vs. median 2 [IQR 1-2], P<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least 1, 2, 3, and 4 viable LVPSs were 100% (24/24), 91.7% (22/24), 58.3% (14/24), and 33.3% (8/24) for Quartet™ leads and 91.7% (22/24), 70.8% (17/24), 0% (0/24), and 0% (0/24) for bipolar lead configurations, respectively. The median and IQR values of viable LVPSs provided by the Quartet™ LV lead remained the same (3 [IQR 2-4]) between pre-discharge and 3-month follow-up (P=0.45). CONCLUSIONS Compared with the bipolar equivalent, QuartetTM LV lead provides more viable LVPSs and opportunities for CRT optimization and multipoint LV pacing. The number of LVPSs provided by Quartet™ leads remained unchanged between pre-discharge and 3-month follow-up.

Non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy: Insights from multimodality imaging and electrocardiography. A brief review

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a successful strategy for heart failure (HF) patients. The pre-requisite for the response is the evidence of electrical dyssynchrony on the surface electrocardiogram usually as left bundle branch block (LBBB). Non-response to CRT is a significant problem in clinical practice. Patient selection, inadequate delivery and sub-optimal left ventricle lead position may be important causes.

OBJECTIVES

In an effort to improve CRT response multimodality imaging (especially echocardiography, computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance) could play a decisive role and extensive literature has been published on the matter. However, we are so far from routinary use in clinical practice. Electrocardiography (with respect to left ventricle capture and QRS narrowing) may represent a simple and low cost approach for early prediction of potential non-responder, with immediate practical implications.

CONCLUSION

This brief review covers the current recommendations for CRT in HF patients with particular attention to the potential benefits of multimodality imaging and electrocardiography in improving response rate.

Position paper for management of elderly patients with pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: Groupe de Rythmologie et Stimulation Cardiaque de la Société Française de Cardiologie and Société Française de Gériatrie et Gérontologie

Despite the increasingly high rate of implantation of pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in elderly patients, data supporting their clinical and cost-effectiveness in this age stratum are ambiguous and contradictory. We reviewed the data regarding the applicability, safety and effectiveness of conventional pacing, ICDs and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in elderly patients. Although periprocedural risk may be slightly higher in the elderly, the implantation procedure for PMs and ICDs is still relatively safe in this age group. In older patients with sinus node disease, the general consensus is that DDD pacing with the programming of an algorithm to minimize ventricular pacing is preferred. In very old patients presenting with intermittent or suspected atrioventricular block, VVI pacing may be appropriate. In terms of correcting potentially life-threatening arrhythmias, the effectiveness of ICD therapy is similar in older and younger individuals. However, the assumption of persistent ICD benefit in the elderly population is questionable, as any advantageous effect of the device on arrhythmic death may be attenuated by higher total non-arrhythmic mortality. While septuagenarians and octogenarians have higher annual all-cause mortality rates, ICD therapy may remain effective in selected patients at high risk of arrhythmic death and with minimum comorbidities despite advanced age. ICD implantation among the elderly, as a group, may not be cost-effective, but the procedure may reach cost-effectiveness in those expected to live more than 5-7years after implantation. Elderly patients usually experience significant functional improvement after CRT, similar to that observed in middle-aged patients. Management of CRT non-responders remains globally the same, while considering a less aggressive approach in terms of reinterventions (revision of left ventricular [LV] lead placement, addition of a right ventricular or LV lead, LV endocardial pacing configuration). Overall, physiological age, general status and comorbidities rather than chronological age per se should be the decisive factors in making a decision about device implantation selection for survival and well-being benefit in elderly patients.

Innovative pacing: Recent advances, emerging technologies, and future directions in cardiac pacing

The field of cardiovascular medicine is rapidly evolving as advancements in technology and engineering provide clinicians new and exciting ways to care for an aging population. Cardiac pacing, in particular, has seen a series of game-changing technologies emerge in the past several years spurred by low-power electronics, high density batteries, improved catheter delivery systems and innovative software design. We look at several of these emerging pacemaker technologies, discussing the rationale, current state and future directions of these pioneering developments in electrophysiology.

Improvement of Right Ventricular Hemodynamics with Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing during Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular epicardial (BV‐CS) or endocardial left ventricular (LV) stimulation (BV‐EN) improves LV hemodynamics. The effect of CRT on right ventricular function is less clear, particularly for BV‐EN. Our objective was to compare the simultaneous acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of the right and left ventricles (RV and LV) with BV‐CS and BV‐EN in order to determine the optimal mode of CRT delivery.

Methods

Nine patients with previously implanted CRT devices successfully underwent a temporary pacing study. Pressure wires measured the simultaneous AHR in both ventricles during different pacing protocols. Conventional epicardial CRT was delivered in LV‐only (LV‐CS) and BV‐CS configurations and compared with BV‐EN pacing in multiple locations using a roving decapolar catheter.

Results

Best BV‐EN (optimal AHR of all LV endocardial pacing sites) produced a significantly greater RV AHR compared with LV‐CS and BV‐CS pacing (P < 0.05). RV AHR had a significantly increased standard deviation compared to LV AHR (P < 0.05) with a weak correlation between RV and LV AHR (Spearman r_s = −0.06). Compromised biventricular optimization, whereby RV AHR was increased at the expense of a smaller decrease in LV AHR, was achieved in 56% of cases, all with BV‐EN pacing.

Conclusions

BV‐EN pacing produces significant increases in both LV and RV AHR, above that achievable with conventional epicardial pacing. RV AHR cannot be used as a surrogate for optimizing LV AHR; however, compromised biventricular optimization is possible. The beneficial effect of endocardial LV pacing on RV function may have important clinical benefits beyond conventional CRT.

In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study

INTRODUCTION

Recent efforts to increase CRT response by multiSPOT pacing (MSP) from multiple bipols on the same left ventricular lead are still inconclusive.

AIM

The Left Ventricular (LV) MultiSPOTpacing for CRT (iSPOT) study compared the acute hemodynamic response of MSP pacing by using 3 electrodes on a quadripolar lead compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BiV).

METHODS

Patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) underwent an acute hemodynamic study to determine the %change in LV+dP/dtmax from baseline atrial pacing compared to the following configurations: BiV pacing with the LV lead in a one of lateral veins, while pacing from the distal, mid, or proximal electrode and all 3 electrodes together (i.e. MSP). All measurements were repeated 4 times at 5 different atrioventricular delays. We also measured QRS-width and individual Q-LV durations.

RESULTS

Protocol was completed in 24 patients, all with LBBB (QRS width 171±20 ms) and 58% ischemic aetiology. The percentage change in LV+dP/dtmax for MSP pacing was 31.0±3.3% (Mean±SE), which was not significantly superior to any BiV pacing configuration: 28.9±3.2% (LV-distal), 28.3±2.7% (LV-mid), and 29.5±3.0% (LV-prox), respectively. Correlation between LV+dP/dtmax and either QRS-width or Q-LV ratio was poor.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LBBB MultiSPOT LV pacing demonstrated comparable improvement in contractility to best conventional BiV pacing. Optimization of atrioventricular delay is important for the best performance for both BiV and MultiSPOT pacing configurations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NTC01883141.

Haemodynamic Alterations Induced By Cardiac Pacing: Is Clinical Evaluation Sufficient Or Do We Need Long-Term Device Monitoring?

Cardiac pacing may induce haemodynamic alterations. RV pacing may have deleterious effects including a decrease of LV function as well as an increase of heart failure hospitalizations and mortality. Biventricular pacing is established in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block or chronic AV block to improve haemodynamics. In the future, device optimization employing quadripolar leads or multisite pacing may further increase the rate of responders. However, cinical evaluation represents the most important tool to recognize the necessity for device optimization. Device algorithms are not yet successfully established to replace clinical and echocardiographic evaluation.