Maximal Electric Separation–Guided Placement of Right Ventricular Lead Improves Responders in Cardiac Resynchronization Defibrillator Therapy

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.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Optimization: A Comprehensive Approach

Since the first report on biventricular pacing in 1994, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become standard for patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and ventricular conduction delay. CRT improves myocardial function by resynchronizing myocardial contraction, which results in reverse left ventricular remodeling and improves symptoms and clinical outcomes. Despite the accelerated development of CRT device technology and its increased application in treating HF patients, almost one-third of these patients do not respond to the therapy or gain any clinical benefit from device implantation. Over the last decade, multiple cardiac imaging modalities have provided a deeper understanding of myocardial pathophysiology, thereby improving HF treatment management. However, the optimal strategy for improving the CRT response remains debatable. This article provides an updated overview of the electropathophysiology of myocardial dysfunction in ventricular conduction delay and the diagnostic approaches involving the use of multiple modalities.

Influence of the Right Ventricular Lead Location on Ventricular Arrhythmias in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background:

The influence of different right ventricular lead locations on ventricular arrhythmias (VTA) in patients with a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is not clear. This study aimed to evaluate the influence on VTA in patients with a CRT when right ventricular lead was positioned at the right ventricular middle septum (RVMS) and the right ventricular apical (RVA).

Methods:

A total of 352 patients implanted with a CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) between May 2012 and July 2016 in the Department of Cardiology of Anhui Provincial Hospital were included. Two-year clinical and pacemaker follow-up data were collected to evaluate the influence of the right ventricular lead location on VTA. Patients were divided into the RVMS group (n = 155) and the RVA group (n = 197) based on the right ventricular lead position. The VTA were compared between these two groups using a Kaplan-Meier curve and Cox multivariate analysis.

Results:

When the left ventricular lead location was not considered, RVMS and RVA locations did not affect VTA. However, the subgroup analysis results showed that when the left ventricular lead was positioned at the anterolateral cardiac vein (ALCV), the RVMS group had an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and appropriate defibrillation (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.29, P = 0.01 and HR = 4.33, P < 0.01, respectively); when the left ventricular lead was at the posterolateral cardiac vein (PLCV), these risks in the RVMS group decreased (HR = 0.45, P = 0.02 and HR = 0.33, P < 0.01, respectively), and when the left ventricular lead was at the lateral cardiac vein, there was no difference between the two groups. In regard to inappropriate defibrillation, there was no significant difference among all these groups.

Conclusions:

When the left ventricular lead was positioned at ALCV or PLCV, the right ventricular lead location was associated with VTA and appropriate defibrillation after CRT. Greater distances between leads not only improved cardiac function but also may reduce the risk of VTA.

Association between implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy and different lead positions in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy

Aims

To evaluate the impact of different right and left ventricular lead positions (RV-LP and LV-LP) on the risk of therapy for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in patients with a cardiac resynchronization therapy device (CRT-D).

Methods and results

We performed a large nationwide cohort study on patients in Denmark receiving a CRT-D device from 2008 to 2012 from the Danish Pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) registry. Lead positions were registered during the implantation and categorized as anterior/lateral/posterior and basal/mid-ventricular/apical for the LV-LP, and as apical/non-apical for the RV-LP. Appropriate and inappropriate therapies were registered during follow-up via remote monitoring or at device interrogations. Time to event was summarized with Kaplan-Meier plots, and competed risk regression analysis was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Following variables were included in the analysis: gender, age, heart failure aetiology, New York heart association class, left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS duration, indication (secondary or primary prophylactic), RV-LP, LV-LP, and antiarrhythmic therapy. We included 1643 patients [mean age 68 (±10) years, 1343 (83%) men]. After a mean of 2.0 years, 322 (20%) patients received appropriate and 66 (4%) patients received inappropriate therapy. The aHR for appropriate therapy with a non-apical RV-LP was 0.70 95% CI (0.55-0.87, P = 0.002) as compared with an apical. We observed no significant association between appropriate therapy and LV-LP in left anterior oblique or right anterior oblique views or inappropriate therapy between any lead positions.

Conclusion

An apical RV-LP is associated with an increased risk of appropriate therapy for ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with a CRT-D device.

Optimal site selection and image fusion guidance technology to facilitate cardiac resynchronization therapy

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has emerged as one of the few effective treatments for heart failure. However, up to 50% of patients derive no benefit. Suboptimal left ventricle (LV) lead position is a potential cause of poor outcomes while targeted lead deployment has been associated with enhanced response rates. Image-fusion guidance systems represent a novel approach to CRT delivery, allowing physicians to both accurately track and target a specific location during LV lead deployment.

AREAS COVERED

This review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of how to define the optimal pacing site. We will evaluate the evidence for delivering targeted LV stimulation at sites displaying favorable viability or advantageous mechanical or electrical properties. Finally, we will evaluate several emerging image-fusion guidance systems which aim to facilitate optimal site selection during CRT.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Targeted LV lead deployment is associated with reductions in morbidity and mortality. Assessment of tissue characterization and electrical latency are critical and can be achieved in a number of ways. Ultimately, the constraints of coronary sinus anatomy have forced the exploration of novel means of delivering CRT including endocardial pacing which hold promise for the future of CRT delivery.

Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta-analysis

Background

Traditionally the right ventricular (RV) pacing lead is placed in the RV apex in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). It is not clear whether nonapical placement of the RV lead is associated with a better response to CRT. We aimed to perform a meta‐analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared apical and nonapical RV lead placement in CRT.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and relevant references for studies and performed meta‐analysis using random effects model. Our main outcome measures were all‐cause mortality, composite of death and heart failure hospitalization, improvement in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricle end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricle end‐systolic volume (LVESV), and adverse events.

Results

Seven RCTs with a total population of 1641 patients (1199 apical and 492 nonapical) were included in our meta‐analysis. There was no difference in all‐cause mortality (5% vs 4.3%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45‐1.64; P = .65; I² = 11%) and a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization (14.2% vs 12.9%, OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.61‐1.38; P = .68; I² = 0) between apical and nonapical groups. No difference in improvement in EF (Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.37; 95% CI: −2.75‐3.48; P = .82; I² = 68%), change in LVEDV (WMD = 3.67; 95% CI: −4.86‐12.20; P = .40; I² = 89%) and LVESV (WMD = −1.20; 95% CI: −4.32‐1.91; P = .45; I² = 0) were noted between apical and nonapical groups. Proportion of patients achieving >15% improvement in EF was similar in both groups (OR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62‐1.16; P = .31; I² = 0).

Conclusion

In patients with CRT, nonapical RV pacing is not associated with improved clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared with RV apical pacing.

Three-dimensional interlead distance predicts response and outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Approximately one-third of patients do not respond favourably to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). A longer distance between ventricular leads may improve response.

AIM

To study the impact of the true three-dimensional interlead distance (ILD) on outcomes.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing CRT device implantation were included prospectively. Interlead separation was measured from postprocedural anterior-posterior and lateral chest X-rays. The three-dimensional ILD was calculated using the Pythagorean theorem. Response to CRT was defined using a composite clinical score at 6 months.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were included (mean age 70±9 years; QRS duration 154±31ms; left ventricular ejection fraction 26±7%; 50% ischaemic). At 6 months, 71% of patients were considered to be responders. Responders had a significantly longer ILD (108±17 vs. 87±21mm; P=0.002). When the ILD was corrected for cardiac size, the optimal cut-off value was ≥ 0.53 for predicting response (sensitivity 83%, specificity 75%, area under the curve 0.84; P=0.0002). Similar results were obtained in a historical retrospective cohort. The use of proximal electrodes on the left ventricular lead was associated with a longer ILD in 95% of patients, compared with more distal pacing configurations. In the total cohort of 74 patients (median follow-up, 420 days), those with an indexed ILD ≥ 0.53 had a 70% reduction in risk of hospitalization for heart failure (P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Longer three-dimensional ILD corrected for cardiac size measured on chest radiographs can accurately predict response to CRT and outcomes. This simple variable may be used to identify optimal lead placement and pacing configuration during CRT implantation.

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.

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.