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

Atrioventricular optimization improves cardiac resynchronization response in patients with long interventricular electrical delays: A pooled analysis of the SMART-AV and SMART-CRT trials

BACKGROUND

The utility of atrioventricular (AV) optimization (AVO) algorithms remains in question. A substudy of the SMART-AV trial found that patients with prolonged interventricular delays ≥70 ms were more likely to benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with AVO. The SMART-CRT trial evaluated AVO on the basis of these results, but the study was underpowered.

OBJECTIVE

To increase statistical power, data from SMART-AV patients meeting the inclusion criterion of interventricular delay ≥70 ms were pooled with data from SMART-CRT to reassess AVO.

METHODS

SMART-CRT and SMART-AV were prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trials. Patients in both studies were randomized to be programmed with an AVO algorithm (SmartDelay) or fixed AV delay (120 ms). Paired echocardiograms obtained at baseline and 6 months were compared, with CRT response defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume.

RESULTS

A total of 451 complete patient data sets were pooled and analyzed. The baseline demographics between studies did not differ statistically in terms of age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, or left ventricular end-systolic volume. The AVO group had a greater proportion of CRT responders (SmartDelay, 73.9%; fixed, 63.1%; P = .014) and greater changes in measures of reverse remodeling. SmartDelay patients with a recommended sensed AV delay outside the nominal range (100-120 ms) had 2.3 greater odds of CRT response than fixed AV delay patients.

CONCLUSION

Greater CRT response and measures of reverse remodeling were observed in patients with SmartDelay enabled vs a fixed AV delay. This study supports the use of SmartDelay in patients with a CRT indication and interventricular delay ≥70 ms.

Determination of sensed and paced atrial-ventricular delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Optimization of atrial-ventricular delay (AVD) during atrial sensing (SAVD) and pacing (PAVD) provides the most effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We demonstrate a novel electrocardiographic methodology for quantifying electrical synchrony and optimizing SAVD/PAVD.

METHODS

We studied 40 CRT patients with LV activation delay. Atrial-sensed to RV-sensed (As-RVs) and atrial-paced to RV-sensed (Ap-RVs) intervals were measured from intracardiac electrograms (IEGM). LV-only pacing was performed over a range of SAVD/PAVD settings. Electrical dyssynchrony (cardiac resynchronization index; CRI) was measured at each setting using a multilead ECG system placed over the anterior and posterior torso. Biventricular pacing, which included multiple interventricular delays, was also conducted in a subset of 10 patients.

RESULTS

When paced LV-only, peak CRI was similar (93 ± 5% vs. 92 ± 5%) during atrial sensing or pacing but optimal PAVD was 61 ± 31 ms greater than optimal SAVD. The difference between As-RVs and Ap-RVs intervals on IEGMs (62 ± 31 ms) was nearly identical. The slope of the correlation line (0.98) and the correlation coefficient r (0.99) comparing the 2 methods of assessing SAVD-PAVD offset were nearly 1 and the y-intercept (0.63 ms) was near 0. During simultaneous biventricular (BiV) pacing at short AVD, SAVD and PAVD programming did not affect CRI, but CRI was significantly (p < .05) lower during atrial sensing at long AVD.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel methodology for measuring electrical dyssynchrony was used to determine electrically optimal SAVD/PAVD during LV-only pacing. When BiV pacing, shorter AVDs produce better electrical synchrony.

Understanding the Application of Mechanical Dyssynchrony in Patients with Heart Failure Considered for CRT

Over the past two decades of CRT use, the failure rate has remained around 30-35%, despite several updates in the guidelines based on the understanding from multiple trials. This review article summarizes the role of mechanical dyssynchrony in the selection of heart failure patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Understanding the application of mechanical dyssynchrony has also evolved during these past two decades. There is no role of lone mechanical dyssynchrony in the patient selection for CRT. However, mechanical dyssynchrony can complement the electrocardiogram and clinical criteria and improve patient selection by reducing the failure rate. An oversimplified approach to mechanical dyssynchrony assessment, such as just estimating time-to-peak delays between segments, should not be used. Instead, methods that can identify the underlying pathophysiology of HF and are representative of a substrate to CRT should be applied.

Frontiers in conduction system pacing: treatment of long PR in patients with heart failure

Patients with heart failure who have a prolonged PR interval are at a greater risk of adverse clinical outcomes than those with a normal PR interval. Potential mechanisms of harm relating to prolonged PR intervals include reduced ventricular filling and also the potential progression to a higher degree heart block. There has, however, been relatively little work specifically focusing on isolated PR prolongation as a therapeutic target. Secondary analyses of trials of biventricular pacing in heart failure have suggested that PR prolongation is both a prognostic marker and a promising treatment target. However, while biventricular pacing offers an improved activation pattern, it is nonetheless less physiological than native conduction in patients with a narrow QRS duration, and thus, may not be the ideal option for achieving therapeutic shortening of atrioventricular delay. Conduction system pacing aims to preserve physiological ventricular activation and may therefore be the ideal method for ventricular pacing in patients with isolated PR prolongation. Acute haemodynamic experiments and the recently reported His-optimized pacing evaluated for heart failure (HOPE HF) Randomised Controlled Trial demonstrates the potential benefits of physiological ventricular pacing on patient symptoms and left ventricular function in patients with heart failure.

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.

Treatment of cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responders: current approaches and new frontiers

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has developed into a very effective technology for patients with decreased systolic function and has substantially improved patients' clinical course. However, non-responsiveness to CRT, described as lack of reverse cardiac chamber remodeling, leading to lack to improve symptoms, heart failure hospitalizations or mortality, is common, rather unpredictable, and not fully understood.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to discuss key factors that are impacting CRT response; from patient selection to LV lead position, to structured follow-up in CRT clinics. Secondly, common causes and interventions for CRT non-responsiveness are discussed. Next, insight is given into technologies representing new and feasible interventions as well as pacing strategies in this group of patients that remain challenging to treat. Finally, an outlook is given into future scientific development.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the progress that has been made, CRT non-response remains a significant and complex problem. Patient management in interdisciplinary teams including heart failure, imaging, and cardiac arrhythmia experts appears critical as complexity is increasing and CRT non-response often is a multifactorial problem. This will allow optimization of medical therapy, the use of new integrated sensor technologies and telemedicine to ultimately optimize outcomes for all patients in need of CRT.

Programming Algorithms for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Current cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implant guidelines emphasize the presence of electrical dyssynchrony (left bundle branch block (LBBB) and QRS > 150 ms) yet have modest predictive value for response and have not reduced the 30% nonresponse rate. Optimized programming to optimize CRT delivery has promised much but to date has largely been ineffective. What is missing is the understanding of LV paced effects (which are unpredictable) and optimal paced AV interval (that can be conserved during physiologic variations) that then can be incorporated into an individualized programming prescription. Automatic device-based algorithms that deliver electrical optimization and maintain this during ambulatory fluctuations in AV interval are discussed.

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.

Basic Principles of Hemodynamics in Pacing

Pacing therapy aims to improve overall cardiac function by normalizing cardiac electrical activation. Although hemodynamic measurements allow the impact of cardiac pacing on cardiac function to be quantified, the protocol is crucial to minimize the effect of noise and achieve greater precision. Multiple steps can be undertaken to optimize accuracy of hemodynamic measurements. These include comparing with a reference state, using an average of a set number of beats, making repeated measurements, ensuring all beats are included, and pacing at faster heart rates. These measurements can aid comparison between different pacing modalities and guide optimal programming.

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.

An electrographic AV optimization for the maximum integrative atrioventricular and ventricular resynchronization in CRT

BACKGROUND

Atrioventricular (AV) delay could affect AV and ventricular synchrony in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Strategies to optimize AV delay according to optimal AV synchrony (AV_opt-AV) or ventricular synchrony (AV_opt-V) would potentially be discordant. This study aimed to explore a new AV delay optimization algorithm guided by electrograms to obtain the maximum integrative effects of AV and ventricular resynchronization (opt-AV).

METHODS

Forty-nine patients with CRT were enrolled. AV_opt-AV was measured through the Ritter method. AV_opt-V was obtained by yielding the narrowest QRS. The opt-AV was considered to be AV_opt-AV or AV_opt-V when their difference was < 20 ms, and to be the AV delay with the maximal aortic velocity-time integral between AV_opt-AV and AV_opt-V when their difference was > 20 ms.

RESULTS

The results showed that sensing/pacing AV_opt-AV (SAV_opt-AV/PAV_opt-AV) were correlated with atrial activation time (P_end-As/P_end-Ap) (P < 0.05). Sensing/pacing AV_opt-V (SAV_opt-V/PAV_opt-V) was correlated with the intrinsic AV conduction time (As-Vs/Ap-Vs) (P < 0.01). The percentages of patients with more than 20 ms differences between SAV_opt-AV/PAV_opt-AV and SAV_opt-V/PAV_opt-V were 62.9% and 57.1%, respectively. Among them, opt-AV was linearly correlated with SAV_opt-AV/PAV_opt-AV and SAV_opt-V/PAV_opt-V. The sensing opt-AV (opt-SAV) = 0.1 × SAV_opt-AV + 0.4 × SAV_opt-V + 70 ms (R² = 0.665, P < 0.01) and the pacing opt-AV (opt-PAV) = 0.25 × PAV_opt-AV + 0.5 × PAV_opt-V + 30 ms (R² = 0.560, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The SAV_opt-AV/PAV_opt-AV and SAV_opt-V/PAV_opt-V were correlated with the atrial activation time and the intrinsic AV conduction interval respectively. Almost half of the patients had a > 20 ms difference between SAV_opt-AV/PAV_opt-AV and SAV_opt-V/PAV_opt-V. The opt-AV could be estimated based on electrogram parameters.

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.

Efficacy of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Using Automated Dynamic Optimization and Left Ventricular-only Pacing

BACKGROUND

Although device-based optimization has been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional optimization methods in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), few real-world data supports the results of clinical trials that showed the efficacy of automatic optimization algorithms. We investigated whether CRT using the adaptive CRT algorithm is comparable to non-adaptive biventricular (BiV) pacing optimized with electrocardiogram or echocardiography-based methods.

METHODS

Consecutive 155 CRT patients were categorized into 3 groups according to the optimization methods: non-adaptive BiV (n = 129), adaptive BiV (n = 11), and adaptive left ventricular (LV) pacing (n = 15) groups. Additionally, a subgroup of patients (n = 59) with normal PR interval and left bundle branch block (LBBB) was selected from the non-adaptive BiV group. The primary outcomes included cardiac death, heart transplantation, LV assist device implantation, and heart failure admission. Secondary outcomes were electromechanical reverse remodeling and responder rates at 6 months after CRT.

RESULTS

During a median 27.5-month follow-up, there was no significant difference in primary outcomes among the 3 groups. However, there was a trend toward better outcomes in the adaptive LV group compared to the other groups. In a more rigorous comparisons among the patients with normal PR interval and LBBB, similar patterns were still observed.

CONCLUSION

In our first Asian-Pacific real-world data, automated dynamic CRT optimization showed comparable efficacy to conventional methods regarding clinical outcomes and electromechanical remodeling.

Long-Term Effect of Different Optimizing Methods for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure: A Randomized and Controlled Pilot Study

AIM

During cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), optimized programming of the atrioventricular (AV) delay and ventricular-to-ventricular (VV) interval can lead to improved hemodynamics, symptomatic response, and left ventricular systolic function. Currently, however, there is no recommendation for the best optimization method. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of 4 different CRT optimization methods.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-four consecutive CRT patients with severe heart failure and left bundle-branch block configuration were randomly assigned into four groups to undergo AV/VV delay optimization through echocardiogram (ECHO; n = 30), electrocardiogram (ECG; n = 32), QuickOpt algorithm (n = 28), and nominal AV/VV (n = 36) groups. Patients were followed up and underwent examinations, including New York Heart Association (NYHA) cardiac functional classification, 6-min walking distance (6MWD), and echocardiography, at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. The patients' survival and clinical outcomes were compared among the four groups.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that the median survival was the same in the 4 groups: ECHO, 43 months; ECG, 44 months; QuickOpt, 44 months, and nominal, 41 months. At the 6-month follow-up, the reduction in left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was significantly less in the nominal group (-1.91 ± 2.58 mm) than that in the other three groups (ECHO: -3.70 ± 2.78 mm, p = 0.012; ECG: -3.53 ± 3.14 mm, p = 0.020; QuickOpt: -3.46 ± 2.65 mm, p = 0.032); 6MWD was significantly shorter in the nominal group (87.88 ± 34.76 m) than that in the other three groups (ECHO: 120.63 ± 56.93 m, p = 0.006; ECG: 114.97 ± 54.95 m, p = 0.020; QuickOpt: 114.57 ± 35.41 m, p = 0.027). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) significantly increased in ECHO (7.23 ± 2.76%, p = 0.010), ECG (8.50 ± 3.17%, p < 0.001), and QuickOpt (8.39 ± 2.90%, p < 0.001) compared with the nominal group (5.35 ± 2.59%). There were no significant differences among the groups in the aforementioned parameters at 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While LVEDD, LVEF, 6MWD, and NYHA were significantly improved in ECHO, ECG, and QuickOpt at 6 months, there were no significant improvements in any of the groups at 12, 24, and 48 months. These findings suggested that the long-term effect of the four CRT methods for heart failure was not significantly different.

Effect of Interventricular Electrical Delay on Atrioventricular Optimization for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Routine atrioventricular optimization (AVO) has not been shown to improve outcomes with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, more recently subgroup analyses of multicenter CRT trials have identified electrocardiographic or lead positions associated with benefit from AVO. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to evaluate whether interventricular electrical delay modifies the impact of AVO on reverse remodeling with CRT.

METHODS

This substudy of the SMART-AV trial (SMARTDELAY Determined AV Optimization) included 275 subjects who were randomized to either an electrogram-based AVO (SmartDelay) or nominal atrioventricular delay (120 ms). Interventricular delay was defined as the time between the peaks of the right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) electrograms (RV-LV duration). CRT response was defined prospectively as a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume from implant to 6 months.

RESULTS

The cohort was 68% men, with a mean age of 65±11 years and LV ejection fraction of 28±8%. Longer RV-LV durations were significantly associated with CRT response ( P<0.01) for the entire cohort. Moreover, the benefit of AVO increased as RV-LV duration prolonged. At the longest quartile, there was a 4.26× greater odds of a remodeling response compared with nominal atrioventricular delays ( P=0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline interventricular delay predicted CRT response. At long RV-LV durations, AVO can increase the likelihood of reverse remodeling with CRT. AVO and LV lead location optimized to maximize interventricular delay may work synergistically to increase CRT response.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00874445.

Acute biventricular hemodynamic effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy in right bundle branch block

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains regarding the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure with right bundle branch block (RBBB) and reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction. Moreover, little is known about acute hemodynamic changes with CRT in this subgroup as compared with patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute biventricular hemodynamic response of CRT and other pacing configurations, including the effects of atrioventricular (AV) delay and atrial pacing, to understand the effects of CRT in RBBB.

METHODS

Forty patients (9 with RBBB and 31 with LBBB) undergoing CRT implantation underwent temporary pacing with varying configurations and AV delay. The acute hemodynamic response was assessed via invasive measurements of dP/dt_max (maximal rate of change in pressure) in the left ventricle (LV) as well as the right ventricle (RV) in patients with RBBB.

RESULTS

Patients with LBBB had a greater LV dP/dt_max response to CRT than did patients with RBBB. In patients with RBBB, single- or dual-site RV pacing configurations resulted in greater increases in RV dP/dt_max than did biventricular pacing. Optimal AV delays that maximized RV dP/dt_max were shorter than optimal AV delays for LV dP/dt_max. Furthermore, AV delays chosen to maximize improvement in RV dP/dt_max frequently resulted in negative effects on LV dP/dt_max.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate a complex relationship between pacing configuration, AV delay, and hemodynamic responses. The biventricular hemodynamic response in patients with heart failure with RBBB might be improved by optimizing pacing modalities and AV delays. This may be particularly important in patients with diseases in whom RV failure predominates, such as patients with pulmonary hypertension and LV assist device.

Advances in atrioventricular and interventricular optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy - what's the gold standard?

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most important advances in heart failure management in the last twenty years. Approximately one-third of patients appear not to respond to therapy. Although there are a number of possible mechanisms for non-response, an important factor is suboptimal atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) timing intervals. There remains controversy over whether routinely optimizing intervals is necessary and there is no agreed gold standard methodology. Optimization has classically been performed using echocardiography which has limits related to resource use, time-cost and variable reproducibility. Newer optimization methods using device-based sensors and algorithms show promise in reducing heart-failure hospitalization compared with echocardiography. Areas covered: This review outlines the rationale for optimization, the principles of AV and VV optimization, the standard echocardiographic approach and newer device-based algorithms and the evidence base for their use. Expert commentary: The incremental gains of optimization are likely to be real, but small, compared to the overall improvement gained from cardiac resynchronization itself. At this time routine optimization may not be mandatory but should be performed where there is no response to CRT. Device-based optimization algorithms appear to be practical and in some cases, deliver superior clinical outcomes compared to echocardiography.

Prediction of optimal cardiac resynchronization by vectors extracted from electrograms in dyssynchronous canine hearts

INTRODUCTION

Proper optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals can improve the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). It has been demonstrated that the area of the QRS complex (QRSarea) extracted from the vectorcardiogram can be used as a predictor of optimal CRT-device settings. We explored the possibility of extracting vectors from the electrograms (EGMs) obtained from pacing electrodes and of using these EGM-based vectors (EGMVs) to individually optimize acute hemodynamic CRT response.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Biventricular pacing was performed in 13 dogs with left bundle branch block (LBBB) of which five also had myocardial infarction (MI), using 100 randomized AV- and VV-settings. Settings providing an acute increase in LV dP/dt_max ≥ 90% of the highest achieved value were defined as optimal. The prediction capability of QRSarea derived from the EGMV (EGMV-QRSarea) was compared with that of QRS duration. EGMV-QRSarea strongly correlated to the change in LV dP/dt_max (R = -0.73 ± 0.19 [LBBB] and -0.66 ± 0.14 [LBBB + MI]), while QRS duration was more poorly related to LV dP/dt_max changes (R = -0.33 ± 0.25 [LBBB] and -0.47 ± 0.39 [LBBB + MI]). This resulted in a better prediction of optimal CRT-device settings by EGMV-QRSarea than by QRS duration (LBBB: AUC = 0.89 [0.86-0.93] vs. 0.76 [0.69-0.83], P < 0.01; LBBB + MI: AUC = 0.91 [0.84-0.99] vs. 0.82 [0.59-1.00], P = 0.20, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In canine hearts with chronic LBBB with or without MI, the EGMV-QRSarea predicts acute hemodynamic CRT response and identifies optimal AV and VV settings accurately. These data support the potency of EGM-based vectors as a noninvasive, easy and patient-tailored tool to optimize CRT-device settings.

The Role of Atrioventricular and Interventricular Optimization for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Many patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction may benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy; however, approximately 30% of patients do not experience significant clinical improvement with this treatment. AV and VV delay optimization techniques have included echocardiography, device-based algorithms, and several other novel noninvasive techniques. Using these techniques to optimize device settings has been shown to improve hemodynamic function acutely; however, the long-term clinical benefit is limited. In most cases, an empiric AV delay with simultaneous biventricular or left ventricular pacing is adequate. The value of optimization of these intervals in "nonresponders" still requires further investigation.

Comparison of echocardiography and device based algorithm for atrio-ventricular delay optimization in heart block patients

AIM: To compare the atrio-ventricular (AV/PV) delay optimization by echocardiography and intra-cardiac electrocardiogram (IEGM) based QuickOpt algorithm in complete heart block (CHB) patients, implanted with a dual chamber pacemaker.

METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 20 patients (age 59.45 ± 18.1 years; male: 65%) with CHB, who were implanted with a dual chamber pacemaker. The left ventricular outflow tract velocity time-integral was measured after AV/PV delay optimization by both echocardiography and QuickOpt algorithm method. Bland-Altman analysis was used for agreement between the two techniques.

RESULTS: The optimal AV and PV delay determined by echocardiography was 155.5 ± 14.68 ms and 122.5 ± 17.73 ms (P < 0.0001), respectively and by QuickOpt method was 167.5 ± 16.73 and 117.5 ms ± 9.10 ms (P < 0.0001), respectively. A good agreement was observed between optimal AV and PV delay as measured by two methods. However, the correlation of the optimal AV (r = 0.0689, P = 0.77) and PV (r = 0.2689, P = 0.25) intervals measured by the two techniques was poor. The time required for AV/PV optimization was 45.26 ± 1.73 min by echocardiography and 0.44 ± 0.08 min by QuickOpt method (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION: The programmer based IEGM method is an automated, quick, easier and reliable alternative to echocardiography for the optimization of AV/PV delay in CHB patients, implanted with a dual chamber pacemaker.

Atrioventricular and ventricular-to-ventricular programming in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from ALTITUDE

PURPOSE

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes in patients with heart failure, yet response rates are variable. We sought to determine whether physician-specified CRT programming was associated with improved outcomes.

METHODS

Using data from the ALTITUDE remote follow-up cohort, we examined sensed atrioventricular (AV) and ventricular-to-ventricular (VV) programming and their associated outcomes in patients with de novo CRT from 2009-2010. Outcomes included arrhythmia burden, left ventricular (LV) pacing, and all-cause mortality at 4 years.

RESULTS

We identified 5709 patients with de novo CRT devices; at the time of implant, 34% (n = 1959) had entirely nominal settings programmed, 40% (n = 2294) had only AV timing adjusted, 11% (n = 604) had only VV timing adjusted, and 15% (n = 852) had both AV and VV adjusted from nominal programming. Suboptimal LV pacing (<95%) during follow-up was similar across groups; however, the proportion with atrial fibrillation (AF) burden >5% was lowest in the AV-only adjusted group (17.9%) and highest in the nominal (27.7%) and VV-only adjusted (28.3%) groups. Adjusted all-cause mortality was significantly higher among patients with non-nominal AV delay >120 vs. <120 ms (adjusted heart rate (HR) 1.28, p = 0.008) but similar when using the 180-ms cutoff (adjusted HR 1.13 for >180 vs. ≤180 ms, p = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Nominal settings for de novo CRT implants are frequently altered, most commonly the AV delay. There is wide variability in reprogramming. Patients with nominal or AV-only adjustments appear to have favorable pacing and arrhythmia outcomes. Sensed AV delays less than 120 ms are associated with improved survival.

PR Interval Identifies Clinical Response in Patients With Non–Left Bundle Branch Block

Background—

In Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT), patients with non–left bundle branch block (LBBB; including right bundle branch block, intraventricular conduction delay) did not have clinical benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D). We hypothesized that baseline PR interval modulates clinical response to CRT-D therapy in patients with non-LBBB.

Methods and Results—

Non-LBBB patients (n=537; 30%) were divided into 2 groups based on their baseline PR interval as normal (including minimally prolonged) PR (PR <230 ms) and prolonged PR (PR ≥230 ms). The primary end point was heart failure or death. Separate secondary end points included heart failure events and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare risk of end point events by CRT-D to implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the PR subgroups. There were 96 patients (22%) with a prolonged PR and 438 patients (78%) with a normal PR interval. In non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval, CRT-D treatment was associated with a 73% reduction in the risk of heart failure/death (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.57; P <0.001) and 81% decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.57; P <0.001) compared with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. In non-LBBB patients with normal PR, CRT-D therapy was associated with a trend toward an increased risk of heart failure/death (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–2.19; P =0.078; interaction P <0.001) and a more than 2-fold higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.12–4.09; P =0.022; interaction P <0.001) compared with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

Conclusions—

The data support the use of CRT-D in MADIT-CRT non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval. In non-LBBB patients with a normal PR interval, implantation of a CRT-D may be deleterious.

Clinical Trial Registration—

http://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT00180271.

Automatic optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy using SonR-rationale and design of the clinical trial of the SonRtip lead and automatic AV-VV optimization algorithm in the paradym RF SonR CRT-D (RESPOND CRT) trial

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in most patients with heart failure (HF) and ventricular dyssynchrony, a significant minority of patients (approximately 30%) are non-responders. Optimal atrioventricular and interventricular delays often change over time and reprogramming these intervals might increase CRT effectiveness. The SonR algorithm automatically optimizes atrioventricular and interventricular intervals each week using an accelerometer to measure change in the SonR signal, which was shown previously to correlate with hemodynamic improvement (left ventricular [LV] dP/dtmax). The RESPOND CRT trial will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the SonR optimization system in patients with HF New York Heart Association class III or ambulatory IV eligible for a CRT-D device. Enrolled patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either SonR CRT optimization or to a control arm employing echocardiographic optimization. All patients will be followed for at least 24 months in a double-blinded fashion. The primary effectiveness end point will be evaluated for non-inferiority, with a nested test of superiority, based on the proportion of responders (defined as alive, free from HF-related events, with improvements in New York Heart Association class or improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire quality of life score) at 12 months. The required sample size is 876 patients. The two primary safety end points are acute and chronic SonR lead-related complication rates, respectively. Secondary end points include proportion of patients free from death or HF hospitalization, proportion of patients worsened, and lead electrical performance, assessed at 12 months. The RESPOND CRT trial will also examine associated reverse remodeling at 1 year.

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy optimisation strategies: systematic classification, detailed analysis, minimum standards and a roadmap for development and testing

In this article an international group of CRT specialists presents a comprehensive classification system for present and future schemes for optimising CRT. This system is neutral to the measurement technology used, but focuses on little-discussed quantitative physiological requirements. We then present a rational roadmap for reliable cost-effective development and evaluation of schemes. A widely recommended approach for AV optimisation is to visually select the ideal pattern of transmitral Doppler flow. Alternatively, one could measure a variable (such as Doppler velocity time integral) and "pick the highest". More complex would be to make measurements across a range of settings and "fit a curve". In this report we provide clinicians with a critical approach to address any recommendations presented to them, as they may be many, indistinct and conflicting. We present a neutral scientific analysis of each scheme, and equip the reader with simple tools for critical evaluation. Optimisation protocols should deliver: (a) singularity, with only one region of optimality rather than several; (b) blinded test-retest reproducibility; (c) plausibility; (d) concordance between independent methods; and (e) transparency, with all steps open to scrutiny. This simple information is still not available for many optimisation schemes. Clinicians developing the habit of asking about each property in turn will find it easier to win now down the broad range of protocols currently promoted. Expectation of a sophisticated enquiry from the clinical community will encourage optimisation protocol-designers to focus on testing early (and cheaply) the basic properties that are vital for any chance of long term efficacy.

Optimizing cardiac resynchronization therapy for congestive heart failure

In patients with advanced systolic heart failure and mechanical dyssynchrony, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective means of improving symptoms and reducing mortality. There are now several recognized approaches to optimize CRT. Imaging modalities can assist with identifying the myocardium with the latest mechanical activation for targeted left ventricular lead implantation. Device programming can be tailored to maximize biventricular pacing, and thereby is its benefit. Cardiac imaging has shown that atrioventricular and interventricular intervals can be adjusted to further reduce dyssynchrony. We review these various approaches that maximize the benefit derived from CRT.

Comparison of different invasive hemodynamic methods for AV delay optimization in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: implications for clinical trial design and clinical practice

Background

Reproducibility and hemodynamic efficacy of optimization of AV delay (AVD) of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using invasive LV dp/dt_max are unknown.

Method and results

25 patients underwent AV delay (AVD) optimisation twice, using continuous left ventricular (LV) dp/dt_max, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP). We compared 4 protocols for comparing dp/dt_max between AV delays:

Immediate absolute: mean of 10 s recording of dp/dt_max acquired immediately after programming the tested AVD,

Delayed absolute: mean of 10 s recording acquired 30 s after programming AVD,

Single relative: relative difference between reference AVD and the tested AVD,

Multiple relative: averaged difference, from multiple alternations between reference and tested AVD.

We assessed for dp/dt_max, LVSBP and LVPP, test–retest reproducibility of the optimum.

Optimization using immediate absolute dp/dt_max had poor reproducibility (SDD of replicate optima = 41 ms; R² = 0.45) as did delayed absolute (SDD 39 ms; R² = 0.50). Multiple relative had better reproducibility: SDD 23 ms, R² = 0.76, and (p < 0.01 by F test).

Compared with AAI pacing, the hemodynamic increment from CRT, with the nominal AV delay was LVSBP 2% and LVdp/dt_max 5%, while CRT with pre-determined optimal AVD gave 6% and 9% respectively.

Conclusions

Because of inevitable background fluctuations, optimization by absolute dp/dt_max has poor same-day reproducibility, unsuitable for clinical or research purposes. Reproducibility is improved by comparing to a reference AVD and making multiple consecutive measurements. More than 6 measurements would be required for even more precise optimization — and might be advisable for future study designs. With optimal AVD, instead of nominal, the hemodynamic increment of CRT is approximately doubled.

Long-term clinical effects of programmer-guided atrioventricular and interventricular delay optimization: Intracardiac electrography versus echocardiography for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure

Objectives

To compare the haemodynamic results and long-term clinical outcomes of intracardiac electrography (QuickOpt®; St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA) and echocardiography for optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delays in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Methods

Patients with CRT devices were prospectively enrolled; AV/VV delays were optimized by either QuickOpt® or echocardiography. Patients in the QuickOpt® group underwent both echocardiography and QuickOpt® optimization, and QuickOpt® AV/VV delays were used to program the CRT. All patients were followed-up for 12 months.

Results

In total, 44 patients were enrolled. There was good correlation between AV/VV delays determined by QuickOpt® ( n = 20) and echocardiography ( n = 24). QuickOpt® was significantly faster than echocardiography-guided optimization. Cardiac function, 6-min walking distance and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly and similarly improved in both groups at 6 and 12 months compared with baseline. In the QuickOpt® group, left ventricular end diastolic diameters were significantly smaller at 6 and 12 months compared with baseline.

Conclusions

QuickOpt® is a quick, convenient and easy to perform method for optimization of AV and VV delays, with a similar long-term clinical outcome to echocardiography-guided optimization.

How to improve outcomes: should we put more emphasis on programming and medical care and less on patient selection?

Many factors contribute to the pathophysiology and progression of heart failure (HF), offering the potential for many synergistic therapeutic approaches to its management. For patients, who have systolic HF, prolonged QRS and receiving guideline-indicated pharmacological therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may provide additional benefits in terms of symptom improvement and mortality reduction. Nevertheless, in many patients, moderate or severe symptoms may persist or recur after CRT implantation due to either the severity or progression of the underlying disease, the presence of important co-morbidities or suboptimal device programming. Identifying and, where possible, treating the reasons for persistent or recurrent symptoms in patients who have received CRT is an important aspect of patient care. The present review summarizes the available evidence on this topic.

A novel algorithm for individualized cardiac resynchronization therapy: rationale and design of the adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy trial

BACKGROUND

The magnitude of benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) varies significantly among its recipients; approximately 30% of CRT patients do not report clinical improvement. Optimization of CRT pacing parameters can further improve cardiac function, both acutely and chronically. Echocardiographic optimization is used in clinical practice, but it is time and resource consuming. In addition, optimal settings at rest may change later with activity or cardiac remodeling. The adaptive CRT (aCRT) algorithm was designed to provide automatic ambulatory adjustment of CRT pacing configuration (left ventricular or biventricular pacing) and device delays based on periodic measurement of electrical conduction intervals.

METHODS

The aCRT algorithm is currently undergoing evaluation in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, worldwide clinical trial. The trial enrolled 522 patients, who satisfied standard clinical indications for a CRT device. Within 2 weeks after the implant, the patients were randomized to aCRT versus echo-optimized biventricular pacing (Echo) settings in 2:1 ratio and followed up at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month postrandomization. The noninferiority primary trial objectives at 6-month postrandomization are to demonstrate that (a) the percentage of aCRT patients who improved in their clinical composite score is at least as high as the percentage of Echo patients; (b) cardiac performance as assessed by echocardiography is similar when using aCRT settings versus echo-optimized settings; and (c) aCRT does not result in inappropriate device settings. First and last patient enrollments occurred in November 2009 and December 2010, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of the aCRT algorithm will be evaluated in this ongoing clinical trial.