Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling Elicited by a Quadripolar Lead: Results from the Multicenter Per4mer Study

Prognostic value of reverse remodelling criteria in heart failure with reduced or mid-range ejection fraction

Aims

Reverse remodelling (RR) is the recovery from left ventricular (LV) dilatation and dysfunction. Many arbitrary criteria for RR have been proposed. We searched the criteria with the strongest prognostic yield for the hard endpoint of cardiovascular death.

Methods and results

We performed a systematic literature search of diagnostic criteria for RR. We evaluated their prognostic significance in a cohort of 927 patients with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% undergoing two echocardiograms within 12 ± 2 months. These patients were followed for a median of 2.8 years (interquartile interval 1.3–4.9) after the second echocardiogram, recording 123 cardiovascular deaths. Two prognostic models were defined. Model 1 included age, LVEF, N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide, ischaemic aetiology, cardiac resynchronization therapy, estimated glomerular filtration rate, New York Heart Association, and LV end‐systolic volume (LVESV) index, and Model 2 the validated Cardiac and Comorbid Conditions Heart Failure score. We identified 25 criteria for RR, the most used being LVESV reduction ≥15% (12 studies out of 42). In the whole cohort, two criteria proved particularly effective in risk reclassification over Model 1 and Model 2. These criteria were (i) LVEF increase >10 U and (ii) LVEF increase ≥1 category [severe (LVEF ≤ 30%), moderate (LVEF 31–40%), mild LV dysfunction (LVEF 41–55%), and normal LV function (LVEF ≥ 56%)]. The same two criteria yielded independent prognostic significance and improved risk reclassification even in patients with more severe systolic dysfunction, namely, those with LVEF < 40% or LVEF ≤ 35%. Furthermore, LVEF increase >10 U and LVEF increase ≥1 category displayed a greater prognostic value than LVESV reduction ≥15%, both in the whole cohort and in the subgroups with LVEF < 40% or LVEF ≤ 35%. For example, LVEF increase >10 U independently predicted cardiovascular death over Model 1 and LVESV reduction ≥15% (hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.18–0.90, P = 0.026), while LVESV reduction ≥15% did not independently predict cardiovascular death (P = 0.112).

Conclusions

Left ventricular ejection fraction increase >10 U and LVEF increase ≥1 category are stronger predictors of cardiovascular death than the most commonly used criterion for RR, namely, LVESV reduction ≥15%.

Clinical outcome of left ventricular multipoint pacing versus conventional biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for selected patients with systolic heart failure. Unlike conventional biventricular pacing (BIP), the left ventricular multipoint pacing (MPP) can increase the number of left ventricular pacing sites via a quadripolar lead positioned in the coronary sinus. This synthetic study was conducted to integratively and quantitatively evaluate the clinical outcome of MPP in comparison with BIP. We systematically searched the databases of EMBASE, Ovid medline, and Cochrane Library through May 2018 for studies comparing the clinical outcome of MPP with BIP in the patients who accepted CRT. Hospitalization for reason of heart failure, left ventricular eject fraction (LVEF), CRT response, all-cause morbidity, and cardiovascular death rate was collected for meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies with 29,606 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with BIP group, MPP decreased heart failure hospitalization (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.50; P < 0.00001), improved LVEF (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, 3.11 to 6.83; P < 0.00001), increased CRT response (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.68 to 7.87; P = 0.001), and decreased all-cause morbidity (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.66; P = 0.0002) and cardiovascular death rate (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.40; P < 0.00001). The published literature demonstrates that MPP was more effective than BIP in the heart failure patients who accepted cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Bipolar active fixation left ventricular lead or quadripolar passive fixation lead? An Italian multicenter experience

AIMS

About one-third of patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are not responders, due to either patient selection or technical issues. Left ventricular quadripolar passive fixation leads (QPL) and bipolar active fixation (BAF) leads have been designed to ensure a targeted left ventricular stimulation area, minimizing lead dislodgments and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS). The aim was to compare real-world safety and efficacy of BAF (Attain Stability, Medtronic Plc.) and QPL (Attain Performa, Medtronic Plc.).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis examining procedural and follow-up data of 261 BAF and 124 QPL (programmed to single-site left ventricular pacing), included in the ClinicalService project from 16 Italian hospitals.

RESULTS

At median follow-up of 12 months, no difference in left ventricular pacing threshold was recorded between BAF and QPL (1.3 ± 0.9 V @0.4 ms vs. 1.3 ± 1.0 V @0.4 ms; P = 0.749). Total left ventricular lead dislodgement rate was 1.43/100 patient-years in BAF vs. 2.9/100 patient-years in QPL (P = 0.583). However, no dislodgements occurred among BAF after hospital discharge. Events requiring repeated surgery or permanently turning CRT off occurred in 0.8% of BAF, as compared with 4.0% of QPL (P = 0.025). There was no difference between groups in the echo CRT responders' rate (70% of BAF and 66% of QPL; P = 0.589) or in the annual rate of heart failure hospitalization (P = 0.513).

CONCLUSIONS

BAF resulted in noninferior clinical outcome and CRT responders' rate in comparison to QPL. Moreover, BAF ensured more precise and stable placement in cardiac veins, with comparable electrical performance and less than 1% patients with unsolved PNS.

Super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy may predict late phrenic nerve stimulation

Aims

Changes in the anatomical relationship between left phrenic nerve and coronary veins may occur due to the reverse remodelling observed in super-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and might be the underlying mechanism in patients developing late-onset phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) without evidence of lead dislodgement (LD). In this study, we sought to evaluate the role of super-response (SR) to CRT as a potential predictor of late-onset PNS.

Methods and results

Consecutive patients implanted with a left ventricular (LV) lead in a single centre were retrospectively analysed. Phrenic nerve stimulation was classified as 'early' when it occurred within 3 months of implantation and 'late' for occurrences thereafter. 'Late' PNS was considered related to LD (LD-PNS) when LV threshold differed by > 1 V or impedance >250 Ω from baseline values or in case of radiological displacement. Cases not meeting the former criteria were classified as 'non-LD-PNS'. Super-response was defined as a decrease ≥30% of the left ventricluar end-systolic volume at 1-year echocardiography. At 32 ± 7 months follow-up, PNS occurred in 20 of 139 patients. Late non-LD-PNS incidence was significantly higher in the SR group (8/61; 13.1%) when compared with the non-SR (1/78; 1.3%) (P = 0.010). Super-response remained the only predictor of non-LD-PNS at multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 11.62, 95% confidence interval 1.41-95.68, P = 0.023).

Conclusion

Incidence of late non-LD-PNS is higher among SR to CRT, suggesting a potential role of the changes in the anatomical relationship between left phrenic nerve and coronary veins.

Performance and clinical comparison between left ventricular quadripolar and bipolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Observational research

Aim

To evaluate Attain Performa (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) quadripolar lead performance in clinical practice and, secondarily, to compare its long term clinical outcomes vs bipolar leads for left ventricular (LV) pacing.

Methods and results

We retrospectively analyzed clinical, procedural and follow-up data of 215 patients implanted with a quadripolar lead. One hundred and twenty one patients implanted with bipolar lead were selected to compare long-term clinical outcomes. The quadripolar lead was implanted in the target vein in 196 patients (91%) without acute dislodgements. In 50% of patients the chosen final pacing configuration at implant would not have been available with bipolar leads. A dedicated quadripolar pacing vector was chosen more frequently when the LV tip location was apical than otherwise (65.6% vs 42.7%, p = 0.003). After a median follow-up of 14 months, the LV pacing threshold was less than 2.5 V at 0.4 ms in 98 patients (90%) with a safety margin between phrenic nerve and LV pacing threshold >3 V in 97 patients (89%). We observed a slight trend toward a lower risk of heart failure worsening and a lower incidence of ventricular arrhythmias and pulmonary congestion in patients implanted with quadripolar leads compared with the control group.

Conclusion

Quadripolar leads improve the management of phrenic nerve stimulation at no trade-off with pacing threshold and lead stability. Quadripolar leads seems to be associated with a lower incidence of VT/VF and pulmonary congestion, when compared with bipolar leads, but further investigations are necessary to confirm that this positive effect is associated with better LV reverse remodeling.

Implant Characteristics of Quadripolar and Bipolar Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Several studies have reported that the left ventricular (LV) lead implant success rate ranges between 88.0% and 92.4%. Coronary venous anatomy differs among patients thus, necessitating multiple types of leads. To date, the implant success rate among Japanese patients utilizing a pre-specified family LV leads (including bipolar and quadripolar) is not well known. The Attain Success Japan Study enrolled patients indicated for a de novo or an upgrade cardiac resynchronization therapy implant. Patients were followed for 3 months, and the implant success rates with Medtronic Attain family LV leads as well as the incidence of complications related to the LV lead were evaluated.Three hundred 53 patients were enrolled from 29 sites in Japan; 346 patients had LV lead implant attempts. The LV lead was successfully implanted in 336 patients (97.1%). Bipolar and quadripolar LV lead implants were successful in 97.2% and 99.2% of patients, respectively (P = 0.43). Four complications (1.2%) related to the LV leads were reported; all of which occurred in patients receiving bipolar LV leads. The quadripolar LV leads were more frequently implanted in the apical segment compared with bipolar leads (21.6% versus 3.8%, P < 0.01). This study demonstrated a high implant success rate and a low LV lead-related complication rate, regardless of bipolar, or quadripolar in a Japanese cohort of patients.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: a comparison among left ventricular bipolar, quadripolar and active fixation leads

We evaluated the performance of 3 different left ventricular leads (LV) for resynchronization therapy: bipolar (BL), quadripolar (QL) and active fixation leads (AFL). We enrolled 290 consecutive CRTD candidates implanted with BL (n = 136) or QL (n = 97) or AFL (n = 57). Over a minimum 10 months follow-up, we assessed: (a) composite technical endpoint (TE) (phrenic nerve stimulation at 8 V@0.4 ms, safety margin between myocardial and phrenic threshold <2V, LV dislodgement and failure to achieve the target pacing site), (b) composite clinical endpoint (CE) (death, hospitalization for heart failure, heart transplantation, lead extraction for infection), (c) reverse remodeling (RR) (reduction of end systolic volume >15%). Baseline characteristics of the 3 groups were similar. At follow-up the incidence of TE was 36.3%, 14.3% and 19.9% in BL, AFL and QL, respectively (p < 0.01). Moreover, the incidence of RR was 56%, 64% and 68% in BL, AFL and QL respectively (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in CE (p = 0.380). On a multivariable analysis, "non-BL leads" was the single predictor of an improved clinical outcome. QL and AFL are superior to conventional BL by enhancing pacing of the target site: AFL through prevention of lead dislodgement while QL through improved management of phrenic nerve stimulation.

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.