Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Risk of Recurrent Hospitalizations in Patients Without Left Bundle Branch Block: The Long-Term Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With 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.

QRS Morphology and the Risk of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Recipients

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data on the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) on the risk of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia in heart failure patients.

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to assess whether QRS morphology is associated with risk of ventricular arrhythmias in CRT recipients.

METHODS

The study population comprised 2,862 patients implanted with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)/CRT-D for primary prevention who were enrolled in 5 landmark primary prevention ICD trials (MADIT-II [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial], MADIT-CRT [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy], MADIT-RIT [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduction in Inappropriate Therapy], MADIT-RISK [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial-RISK], and RAID [Ranolazine in High-Risk Patients With Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators]). Patients with QRS duration ≥130 ms were divided into 2 groups: those implanted with an ICD only vs CRT-D. The primary endpoint was fast ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) (defined as VT ≥200 beats/min or VF), accounting for the competing risk of death. Secondary endpoints included appropriate shocks, any sustained VT or VF, and the burden of fast VT/VF, assessed in a recurrent event analysis.

RESULTS

Among patients with left bundle branch block (n = 1,792), those with CRT-D (n = 1,112) experienced a significant 44% (P < 0.001) reduction in the risk of fast VT/VF compared with ICD-only patients (n = 680), a significantly lower burden of fast VT/VF (HR: 0.55; P = 0.001), with a reduced burden of appropriate shocks (HR: 0.44; P < 0.001). In contrast, among patients with non-left bundle branch block (NLBBB) (N = 1,070), CRT-D was not associated with reduction in fast VT/VF (HR: 1.33; P = 0.195). Furthermore, NLBBB patients with CRT-D experienced a statistically significant increase in the burden of fast VT/VF events compared with ICD-only patients (HR: 1.90; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest a potential proarrhythmic effect of CRT among patients with NLBBB. These data should be considered in patient selection for treatment with CRT.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay

The efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) is well established with Class I or IIa recommendation according to 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and CRT, whereas non-LBBB morphology is less recommended. There is insufficient evidence that proves patients with NICD could benefit from CRT. As patients with NICD are characterized by heterogeneity, the effect of CRT on these patients is still controversial. Although the proportion of NICD in the population is lower than that of LBBB patients, it is still worth investigating the effects of CRT on patients with NICD in an era of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP).