Similar Long-Term Benefits Conferred by Apical Versus Mid-Septal Implantation of the Right Ventricular Lead in Recipients of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Systems

Apical or Septal Right Ventricular Location in Patients Receiving Defibrillation Leads: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study reviews the published data comparing the efficacy and safety of apical and septal right ventricle defibrillator lead positioning at 1-year follow-up. Systemic research on Medline (PubMed), ClinicalTrials.gov , and Embase was performed using the keywords "septal defibrillation," "apical defibrillation," "site defibrillation," and "defibrillation lead placement," including implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices. Comparisons between apical and septal position were performed regarding R-wave amplitude, pacing threshold at a pulse width of 0.5 ms, pacing and shock lead impedance, suboptimal lead performance, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, readmissions due to heart failure and mortality rates. A total of 5 studies comprising 1438 patients were included in the analysis. Mean age was 64.5 years, 76.9% were male, with a median LVEF of 27.8%, ischemic etiology in 51.1%, and a mean follow-up period of 26.5 months. The apical lead placement was performed in 743 patients and septal lead placement in 690 patients. Comparing the 2 placement sites, no significant differences were found regarding R-wave amplitude, lead impedance, suboptimal lead performance, LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, and mortality rate at 1-year follow-up. Pacing threshold values favored septal defibrillator lead placement ( P = 0.003), as well as shock impedance ( P = 0.009) and readmissions due to heart failure ( P = 0.02). Among patients receiving a defibrillator lead, only pacing threshold, shock lead impedance, and readmission due to heart failure showed results favoring septal lead placement. Therefore, generally, the right ventricle lead placement does not appear to be of major importance.

Right ventricular lead location and outcomes among patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been demonstrated to improve heart failure (HF) symptoms, reverse LV remodeling, and reduce mortality and HF hospitalization (HFH) in patients with a reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). Prior studies examining outcomes based on right ventricular (RV) lead position among CRT patients have provided mixed results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies comparing RV apical (RVA) and non-apical (RVNA) lead position in CRT.

METHODS

Our meta-analysis was constructed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE. Eligible studies reported on at least one of the following outcomes of interest: all-cause mortality, the composite endpoint of death and first HFH hospitalization, change in LVEF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement, and change in LV end systolic volume (LVESV). We performed meta-analysis summaries using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and conservatively used the Knapp-Hartung approach to adjust the standard errors of the estimated model coefficients.

RESULTS

We included nine studies representing a total of 1832 patients. Of those, 1318 (72%) patients had RVA lead placement and 514 (28%) had RVNA lead placement. The mean age of patients was 65.5 ± 4.4 years, and they were predominantly men (69%-97%). There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality by RVA vs. RVNA (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.32-1.89; I2 = 16.7%, p = 0.31), or in the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and first HFH (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.62-1.25; I2 = 0%, p = 0.84). Also, there was no difference between RVA and RVNA for NYHA class improvement (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.9-1.17; I2 = 0%, p = 0.99), change in LVEF (mean difference (MD) = 1.33, 95% CI -1.45 to 4.10; I2 = 47%; p = 0.093), and change in LVESV (MD = -1.11, 95% CI -3.34 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; p = 0.92).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that in CRT pacing, RV lead position does not appear to be associated with clinical outcomes or LV reverse remodeling. Further studies should focus on the relationship of RV lead vis-à-vis LV lead location, and its clinical importance.

Right heart-pulmonary circulation unit and cardiac resynchronization therapy

Clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been known for years to be highly variable, with a spectrum of responses from no change or even deterioration of cardiac function to spectacular improvements. In the plethora of clinical, echocardiographic, biohumoral, and electrophysiological predictors of response to CRT and postimplant issues besides patient selection, the role of right ventricular (RV) function has been largely overlooked. In reviewing current evidence, we noticed conflicting results between observational studies and randomized trials not only concerning the impact of baseline RV function on CRT efficacy but also on the effects of CRT on RV size and function. Hence, we aimed to provide a critical reappraisal of current knowledge and unresolved issues on the reciprocal interactions between RV function and CRT, shifting the spotlight on the concept of right heart pulmonary circulation unit and on the clinical and prognostic significance of impaired ventricular-arterial coupling reserve. In this viewpoint, we propose that (1) CRT should not be denied to potential candidate because of "isolated" RV dysfunction and (2) assessment of baseline right heart pulmonary circulation unit and its dynamic response to pharmacological stress should be considered in future studies, as well as in the preimplant evaluation of individual candidates among other clinical factors.

Comparison of right ventricular septal pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators: the SEPTAL CRT Study

AIMS

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a recommended treatment of heart failure (HF) patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction and wide QRS. The optimal right ventricular (RV) lead position being a matter of debate, we sought to examine whether RV septal (RVS) pacing was not inferior to RV apical (RVA) pacing on left ventricular reverse remodelling in patients receiving a CRT-defibrillator.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (n = 263, age = 63.4 ± 9.5 years) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to RVS (n = 131) vs. RVA (n = 132) pacing. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction between baseline and 6 months was not different between the two groups (-25.3 ± 39.4 mL in RVS group vs. -29.3 ± 44.5 mL in RVA group, P = 0.79). Right ventricular septal pacing was not non-inferior (primary endpoint) to RVA pacing with regard to LVESV reduction (average difference = -4.06 mL; P = 0.006 with a -20 mL non-inferiority margin). The percentage of 'echo-responders' defined by LVESV reduction >15% between baseline and 6 months was similar in both groups (50%) with no difference in the time to first HF hospitalization or death (P = 0.532). Procedural or device-related serious adverse events occurred in 68 patients (RVS = 37) with no difference between the two groups (P = 0.401).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that septal RV pacing in CRT is non-inferior to apical RV pacing for LV reverse remodelling at 6 months with no difference in the clinical outcome. No recommendation for optimal RV lead position can hence be drawn from this study.

CLINICALTRIALS GOV NUMBER

NCT 00833352.

ECG Patterns In Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an established treatment modality in heart failure. Though non-response is a serious issue. To address this issue, a good understanding of the electrical activation during underlying intrinsic ventricular activation, biventricular as well as right- and left ventricular pacing is needed. By interpreting the 12-lead electrocardiogram, possible reasons for suboptimal treatment can be identified and addressed. This article reviews the literature on QRS morphology in cardiac resynchronization therapy and its role in optimization of therapy.

Apical vs. non-apical right ventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure. The optimal site of right ventricular (RV) stimulation in CRT has not been established. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials and observational studies comparing the mid- and long-term effects of RV apical (RVA) and non-apical (RVNA) pacing on CRT outcomes.

METHODS

We systematically searched the Cochrane library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for studies evaluating RVA vs. RVNA pacing in CRT with regards to left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction, functional status improvement (defined as ≥1 New York Heart Association class improvement), and the clinical outcome of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. Effect estimates [standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)] were pooled using random-effect models.

RESULTS

Twelve studies comprising 2670 patients (1655 with an apical and 1015 with a non-apical RV lead position) were included. In meta-analyses, LVESV reduction and functional status improvement were similar in patients with RVA and RVNA pacing (SMD 0.13, 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.50, P = 0.48; OR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.45, P = 0.60, respectively). Data regarding mortality and hospitalizations could not be pooled due to a small number of relevant studies with significant heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that in CRT patients the effects of RVA or RVNA pacing on LV remodelling and functional status are similar. Mortality and morbidity outcomes with different RV lead positions should be further assessed in randomized clinical trials.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines on the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy: evidence and patient selection

Recent landmark trials provided the impetus to update the recommendations for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This article provides guidance on the prescription of CRT within the confines of published data. A future article will explore the implementation of these guidelines. These guidelines are intended to serve as a framework for the prescription of CRT within the Canadian health care system and beyond. They were developed through a critical evaluation of the existing literature, and expert consensus. The panel unanimously adopted each recommendation. The 8 recommendations relate to ensuring the adequacy of medical therapy before the initiation of CRT, the use of symptom severity to select candidates for CRT, differing recommendations based on the presence or absence of sinus rhythm, the presence of left bundle branch block vs other conduction patterns, and QRS duration. The use of CRT in the setting of chronic right ventricular pacing, left ventricular lead placement, and the routine assessment of dyssynchrony to guide the prescription of CRT are also included. The strength of evidence was weighed, taking full consideration of any risks of bias, as well as any imprecision, inconsistency, and indirectness of the available data. The strength of each recommendation and the quality of evidence were adjudicated. Trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies were considered, as were values, preferences, and resource availability. These guidelines were externally reviewed by experts, modified based on those reviews, and will be updated as new knowledge is acquired.

A randomized study of defibrillator lead implantations in the right ventricular mid-septum versus the apex: the SEPTAL study

INTRODUCTION

The study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and performance of right ventricular (RV) mid-septal versus apical implantable defibrillator (ICD) lead placement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

SEPTAL is a randomized, noninferiority trial, which randomly assigned patients to implantation of ICD leads in the RV mid-septum versus apex, with a primary objective of comparing the implant success rate of implant at each site, based on strict electrical predefined criteria. We also compared the (1) pacing lead characteristics, (2) rates of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies, and (3) all-cause mortality between the 2 sites at 1 year. The trial enrolled 215 patients (mean age = 59.7 ± 12.4 years, mean LVEF = 34.0 ± 14.2%, 84.2% men), of whom 148 (68.8%) presented with ischemic heart disease. The ICD indication was primary prevention in 117 patients (54.4%). The lead was successfully implanted in 96/107 patients (89.7%) assigned to the RV mid-septum, and in 99/108 (91.7%) assigned to the apex (ns). The 1-year rate of lead-related adverse events was similar in both groups. A total of 8 first inappropriate ICD therapies (7.9%) were delivered in the RV mid-septal group, versus 8 (7.8%) in the apical group (ns), while first appropriate therapies were delivered to 22 (21.4%) and 24 patients (23.8%), respectively (ns). All-cause mortality was 7.9% in the RV mid-septal versus 2.9% in the RV apical group (ns).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the technical feasibility and noninferior performance of ICD leads implanted in the RV mid-septum versus the apex.

Right ventricular pacing and sensing function in high posterior septal and apical lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

The conventional right ventricular (RV) lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (CRT-P) is the RV apex (RV-A). Little is known about electrophysiological stability and associated complications of pacing leads in RV high posterior septal (RV-HS) position in CRT-P.

METHODS

Two hundred and thirty-five consecutive CRT-P patients were included from 1999-2010. Pacing thresholds at 0.5ms and 2.5V, sensing electrograms and lead impedances were measured at implant and repeated 1,3,6,12,18 and 24 months after CRT-P. Electrophysiological measurements of leads located in RV-A and RV-HS were analyzed retrospectively. Bipolar RV leads were used, including high impedance leads, passive fixation and active fixation.

RESULTS

RV pacing leads were implanted in RV-A (n=79) and RV-HS (n=156). Average RV pacing thresholds from CRT implant procedure to 24-month follow-up at 0.5ms were 0.77±0.69V in RV-A and 0.71±0.35V in RV-HS (P=0.31), and at 2.5V were 0.06±0.08ms in RV-A and 0.07±0.05ms in RV-HS (P=0.12). Average RV electrogram amplitudes from baseline to 24 months after CRT were 15.3±6.9mV in RV-A and 12.1±6.0mV in RV-HS (P=0.55). Average RV impedances during follow-up were 850±286Ω in RV-A and 618±147Ω in RV-HS (P=0.57). Similar RV lead revisions between RV-A and RV-HS were observed after 2-year follow-up (P=0.55).

CONCLUSION

The RV-HS lead position demonstrated stable and acceptable long-term pacing and sensing function, with rates of complications comparable to conventional RV-A lead position in CRT. The RV-HS lead position is feasible in CRT-P.