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

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Clinical outcomes of automatic algorithms in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Algorithms to automatically adjust atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices are common, but their clinical efficacy is unknown.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate automatic CRT algorithms in patients with heart failure for the reduction of mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and clinical improvement.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with CRT using automatic algorithms that change AV and VV intervals dynamically without manual input, on a beat-to-beat basis. We performed a subgroup analysis including intracardiac electrogram-based (EGM) algorithms and contractility-based algorithms.

Results

Nine RCTs with 8531 participants were included, of whom 4275 (50.1%) were randomized to automatic algorithm. Seven of the 9 trials used EGM-based algorithms, and 2 used contractility sensors. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (10.3% vs 11.3%; odds ratio [OR] 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.03; P = .13; I2 = 0%) or heart failure hospitalizations (15.0% vs 16.1%; OR 0.924; 95% CI 0.81-1.04; P = .194; I2 = 0%) between the automatic algorithm group and the control group. Study-defined clinical improvement was also not significantly different between groups (66.6% vs 63.3%; risk ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.06; P = .82; I2 = 50%). In the contractility-based subgroup, there was a trend toward greater clinical improvement with the use of the automatic algorithm (75% vs 68.3%; OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.97-2.18; P = .07; I2 = 40%), which did not reach statistical significance. The overall risk of bias was low.

Conclusion

Automatic algorithms that change AV or VV intervals did not improve mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, or cardiovascular symptoms in patients with heart failure and CRT.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Echocardiography- versus intracardiac electrocardiogram-based optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the performance of echocardiography-based programming in comparison with the intracardiac electrocardiogram (IEGM)-based method for the optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using digital databases to systematically identify the studies reporting CRT optimization through echocardiography compared with IEGM. Detailed patient-level study characteristics including the type of study, sample size, therapy, the New York Heart Classification (NYHA) status, lead placement, and other parameters were abstracted. Finally, postprogramming outcomes were extracted for each article.

RESULTS

In a total of 11 studies, 919 patients were recruited for the final analysis. Overall, 692 (75.29%) were males. The mean duration of the QRS complex in our study population ranged from 145.2 ± 21.8 ms to 183 ± 19.9 ms. There was an equal improvement in the NYHA class between the two methods while the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) demonstrated an improvement by IEGM. Many studies supported IEGM to increase the 6-minute walk test and left ventricular outflow tract velocity time interval (LVOT VTI) when compared to echocardiography. The mean time for echocardiography-based optimization was 60.15 min while that of IEGM-based optimization was 6.65 min.

CONCLUSION

IEGM is an alternative method for CRT optimization in improving the NYHA class, LVEF, and LVOT VTI, and is less time-consuming when compared to the echocardiography-based methods.

Effect Evaluation of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Elderly Patients with Heart Failure by Ultrasound Image under QuickOpt Algorithm

This research was aimed at analyzing the application value of echocardiography and QuickOpt algorithm in optimizing parameters of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in elderly patients with heart failure. 50 elderly patients who were diagnosed with chronic heart failure and underwent CRT were chosen as the research objects. According to the different optimization methods, the patients were divided into the echocardiography group and QuickOpt algorithm group, 25 cases in each group. The general data, optimized intervals, corresponding maximum aortic velocity time integrals (aVTIs), cardiac ultrasound indicators, and ventricular arrhythmia episodes of the patients in the two groups were analyzed. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the optimized sensed atrioventricular (SAV), paced atrioventricular (PAV), and ventricle to ventricle (VV) intervals and the corresponding aVTIs obtained by echocardiography and QuickOpt (P > 0.05). The consistency analysis revealed that the aVTIs in the SAV, PAV, and VV intervals presented a good consistency (P < 0.01), which were obtained by the echocardiography and QuickOpt functional optimization; the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) in them was 96.16%, 98.03%, and 95.48%, respectively. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed an increasing trend over time in both groups, while the left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV), and morphological right ventricle (MRV) showed the downward trends over time, and the differences between two groups were not significant (P > 0.05). For the premature ventricular contraction (PVC) of ventricular arrhythmia episodes, there was no significant difference between the two groups in log (PVCs) and log (PVC runs) (P > 0.05). It was also found that both echocardiography and QuickOpt algorithm could improve the cardiac function of patients with heart failure significantly and reduce ventricular arrhythmia episodes and ventricular remodeling via optimized CRT; there was no difference in the improvement effect of the two optimization methods. However, echocardiography was inferior to QuickOpt algorithm in terms of time-consuming optimization in the intervals. This provided a reference for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of elderly patients with heart failure.