Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with systematic device optimization vs. standard (non-systematic) optimization: a multinational economic evaluation

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.

The clinical benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization using a device-based hemodynamic sensor in a patient with dilated cardiomyopathy: a case report

Introduction

Results on the evolution of the clinical status of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator after automatic optimization of their cardiac resynchronization therapy are scarce. We observed a rapid and important change in the clinical status of our non-responding patient following activation of a sensor capable of weekly atrioventricular and interventricular delays' optimization.

Case presentation

A 78-year-old Caucasian man presented with dilated cardiomyopathy, left bundle branch block, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35 %, New York Heart Association class III/IV heart failure, and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Our patient was implanted with a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator and the SonRtip atrial lead. Right ventricular and left ventricular leads were also implanted. Because of the recurrence of atrial fibrillation, the automatic optimization was set off at discharge. Consequently, the device did not optimize atrioventricular and interventricular delays (programming at discharge: 125 ms for the atrioventricular delay and 0 ms for the interventriculardelay). Our patient was treated with an anti-arrhythmic drug. Five months after implantation, his clinical status remained impaired (left ventricular ejection fraction = 30 %). The SonR signal amplitude had also decreased from 0.52 g to 0.29 g. Nevertheless, because our patient was no longer presenting with atrial fibrillation, the anti-arrhythmic treatment was stopped and the SonR optimization system was activated. After 2 months of automatic cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator optimization, our patient’s clinical status had significantly improved (left ventricular ejection fraction = 60 %, New York Heart Association class II) and the SonR signal amplitude had doubled shortly after the first weekly automatic optimization.

Conclusion

In this non-responding patient, device-based automatic cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization was shown to significantly improve his clinical status.