Hemodynamic Effects of Atrial Septal Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Patients

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.

The effect of posture, exercise, and atrial pacing on atrioventricular conduction in systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Optimization of atrioventricular (AV) intervals for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) programming is typically performed in supine patients at rest, which may not reflect AV timing in other conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of posture, exercise, and atrial pacing on intrinsic AV intervals in patients with CRT devices.

METHODS

Rate-dependent A-V delay by exercise was a multicenter, prospective trial of patients in sinus rhythm following CRT implantation. Intracardiac electrograms were recorded to analyze atrial to right ventricular (ARV), atrial to left ventricular (ALV), and RV to LV (VV) time intervals. Heart rate was increased with incremental atrial pacing in different postures, followed by an exercise treadmill test.

RESULTS

This study included 36 patients. At rest, AV intervals changed minimally with posture. With atrial pacing, AV interval immediately increased compared with sinus rhythm, with ARV slopes being 8.1 ± 7.7, 8.8 ± 13.4, and 6.8 ± 6.5 milliseconds per beat per minute (ms/bpm) and ALV slopes being 8.2 ± 7.7, 9.1 ± 12.8, and 7.0 ± 6.5 ms/bpm for supine, standing and sitting positions, respectively. As the paced heart rate increased, ARV and ALV intervals increased more gradually with similar trends. Interventricular conduction times changed less than 0.2 ms/bpm with atrial pacing. During exercise, the direction of change of intrinsic ARV intervals, as heart rate increased, was variable between patients with relatively small overall group changes (0.1 ± 1.4 and 0.2 ± 1.2 ms/bpm for ARV and ALV, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Posture and exercise have a smaller effect on AV timing compared with atrial pacing. However, individualized optimization and dynamic rate related changes may be needed to maintain optimal fusion with left ventricular (LV) stimulation.

Current concepts in pacing 2010-2011: the right and wrong way to pace

OPINION STATEMENT

Over five decades have passed since the first permanent cardiac pacemakers were introduced into clinical medicine. Evolving technology and falling costs have demanded adaptation to clinical practice and implantation trends and, with the advent of evidenced-based medicine, the specific roles and benefits of individual pacemaker technologies have never been so carefully scrutinized. Pacing mode choice continues to be a subject of great controversy, and there are great regional variations in practice. We believe that single chamber atrial pacing use (AAI/R) has become an anachronism that should generally be abandoned (obviously with rare exceptional cases) and be replaced by dual chamber pacemakers (DDD/R) equipped with modern pacing algorithms that minimize patient exposure to ventricular pacing. Also, in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block, randomized clinical trials have failed to show improvement in clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality, stroke, and heart failure, particularly in the elderly, which has led some to advocate that DDD/R devices should never be offered to elderly AV block patients. However, we believe that the elderly, like the young, come in many "shapes and sizes" and individualized medicine compels us to consider each pacemaker candidate as unique. Implanting DDD/R devices in chronologically older, yet physiologically younger, patients is justifiable and good medical practice. Where right ventricular (RV) pacing is necessary and unavoidable, physicians should consider routinely placing RV leads on the RV mid- or outflow tract septum because these location are as good, if not better, for patients than the current practice of RV apical lead placement. In patients with AV block and asymptomatic yet moderate to severely depressed left ventricular systolic function, primary cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) should be strongly considered. Compelling clinical trial evidence does not yet exist to indicate that CRT should be the standard of care in patients with AV block and intact left ventricular systolic function. Right ventricular septal lead placement remains a reasonable option.

Primary Results From the SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (SMART-AV) Trial

Background

One variable that may influence cardiac resynchronization therapy response is the programmed atrioventricular (AV) delay. The SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (SMART-AV) Trial prospectively randomized patients to a fixed empirical AV delay (120 milliseconds), echocardiographically optimized AV delay, or AV delay optimized with SmartDelay, an electrogram-based algorithm.

Methods and Results

A total of 1014 patients (68% men; mean age, 66±11 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 25±7%) who met enrollment criteria received a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, and 980 patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio. All patients were programmed (DDD-60 or DDDR-60) and evaluated after implantation and 3 and 6 months later. The primary end point was left ventricular end-systolic volume. Secondary end points included New York Heart Association class, quality-of-life score, 6-minute walk distance, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The medians (quartiles 1 and 3) for change in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months for the SmartDelay, echocardiography, and fixed arms were −21 mL (−45 and 6 mL), −19 mL (−45 and 6 mL), and −15 mL (−41 and 6 mL), respectively. No difference in improvement in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months was observed between the SmartDelay and echocardiography arms ( P =0.52) or the SmartDelay and fixed arms ( P =0.66). Secondary end points, including structural (left ventricular end-diastolic volume and left ventricular ejection fraction) and functional (6-minute walk, quality of life, and New York Heart Association classification) measures, were not significantly different between arms.

Conclusions

Neither SmartDelay nor echocardiography was superior to a fixed AV delay of 120 milliseconds. The routine use of AV optimization techniques assessed in this trial is not warranted. However, these data do not exclude possible utility in selected patients who do not respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT00677014.

SmartDelay determined AV optimization: a comparison of AV delay methods used in cardiac resynchronization therapy (SMART-AV): rationale and design

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for patients with moderate-to-severely symptomatic heart failure, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and ventricular conduction delay is established. However, some patients do not demonstrate clinical improvement following CRT. It is unclear whether systematic optimization of the programmed atrioventricular (AV) delay improves the rate of clinical response.

METHODS

SMART-AV is a randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, three-armed trial that will investigate the effects of optimizing AV delay timing in heart failure patients receiving CRT + defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy. A minimum of 950 patients will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio using randomly permuted blocks within each center programmed to either DDD or DDDR with a lower rate of 60. The study will include echocardiographic measurements of volumes and function [e.g., left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV)], biochemical measurements of plasma biomarker profiles, and functional measurements (e.g., 6-minute hall walk) in CRT-D patients who are enrolled and randomized to fixed AV delay (i.e., 120 ms), AV delay determined by electrogram-based SmartDelay, or an AV delay determined by echocardiography (i.e., mitral inflow). Patients will be evaluated prior to initiation of CRT, 3 and 6 months post-implant. The primary endpoint is the relative change in LVESV at 6 months between the groups. Patient enrollment commenced in May 2008 and the study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov.

CONCLUSION

SMART-AV is a randomized, clinical trial designed to evaluate three different methods of AV delay optimization to determine whether systematic AV optimization is beneficial for patients receiving CRT for 6 months post-implant.

Echocardiographic optimization of the atrioventricular and interventricular intervals during cardiac resynchronization

An optimized atrioventricular (AV) interval can maximize the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). If programmed poorly, it may curtail beneficial effects of CRT. AV optimization will not convert non-responder to responder, but may convert under-responder to improved status. There are many echocardiographic techniques for AV optimization but there is no universally accepted gold standard. The optimal AV delay varies with time, necessitating periodic re-evaluation. As the optimal AV delay may lengthen on exercise, a rate-adaptive AV delay should not be routinely programmed. Intra- and interatrial conduction delays may require AV junctional ablation when AV optimization is impossible in patients with a poor clinical response. Fusion with the spontaneous QRS complex may be acceptable on a trial basis to seek a better clinical response or with a short PR interval. Routine VV optimization is presently controversial but programming may prove beneficial in some patients with a suboptimal CRT response where no cause is found. It may partially compensate for less than optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position and may correct for heterogeneous ventricular activation including a prolonged LV latency interval and slow conduction (scarring) near the LV pacing site. VV timing is generally programmed using the aortic velocity-time integral, and long-term variations of the optimal value necessitate periodic re-evaluation.

A prospective comparison of AV delay programming methods for hemodynamic optimization during cardiac resynchronization therapy

INTRODUCTION

There are several methods for programming the optimal AV delay (AVD) during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). These include Doppler echocardiographic measurements of mitral inflow or aortic outflow velocities, an arbitrarily fixed AVD, and calculations based on intracardiac electrogram (EGM) intervals. The present study was designed to compare the acute effects of AVD programming methods during CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 28 patients at CRT implant with invasive measurements of LV dP/dt to determine the effect of AVD during atrial sensed (AS) and atrial paced (AP) modes. The optimal AVD, defined as that resulting in the maximal LV dP/dt, was then compared with that predicted by several noninvasive methods. CRT increased LV dP/dt 11% +/- 11% during AS (heart rate: 73 +/- 14 bpm) and 17% +/- 12% during AP (heart rate: 86 +/- 12 bpm) (P < 0.001 vs AS). There was an excellent correlation between the EGM method and the maximum achievable LV dP/dt (AS: R2 = 0.99, P < 0.0001, AP: R2 = 0.96, P < 0.0001) and this method performed better than other techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

An electrogram-based optimization method accurately predicts the optimal AVD among patients over a wide range of QRS intervals during CRT in both AS and AP modes. This simple technique may obviate the need for echocardiography for AVD programming.

Pacing Evaluation-Atrial SUpport Study in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (PEGASUS CRT): design and rationale

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been demonstrated to be an effective heart failure (HF) therapy. All pivotal trials of CRT to date have used atrial-synchronous biventricular pacing wherein there is no or minimal atrial pacing. In clinical practice, however, physicians often program CRT devices to have atrial rate support pacing, either by increasing the lower rate limit or by activating the rate sensor.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of empiric atrial support pacing in patients with HF who have received a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) device.

METHODS

PEGASUS CRT is a multicenter, 3-arm, randomized clinical trial of approximately 1200 patients receiving a CRT-D device. For the first 6 weeks after implant, devices are programmed to DDD with a lower rate limit of 40 beats/min. At 6 weeks, patients are randomized to DDD-40, DDD-70, or DDDR-40. All randomized patients are followed for 1 year, and at each visit, mortality, HF events, quality of life, New York Heart Association class, and atrial and ventricular arrhythmic episodes are evaluated. An exercise substudy will also be conducted, enrolling a minimum of 375 patients. Patients in this substudy will complete 2 cardiopulmonary exercise tests to evaluate the effect pacing mode has on exercise capacity. This randomized controlled trial will address whether empiric atrial support pacing is of clinical benefit to patients with HF who receive a CRT-D device.