Effect of QRS Morphology and Duration on Clinical Outcomes After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy - Analysis of Japanese Multicenter Registry

A novel method combining gated SPECT and vectorcardiography to guide left ventricular lead placement to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A proof of concept study

BACKGROUND

The segment of the latest mechanical contraction (LMC) does not always overlap with the site of the latest electrical activation (LEA). By integrating both mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, this proof-of-concept study aimed to propose a new method for recommending left ventricular (LV) lead placements, with the goal of enhancing response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

The LMC segment was determined by single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) phase analysis. The LEA site was detected by vectorcardiogram. The recommended segments for LV lead placement were as follows: (1) the LMC viable segments that overlapped with the LEA site; (2) the LMC viable segments adjacent to the LEA site; (3) If no segment met either of the above, the LV lateral wall was recommended. The response was defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) 6-months after CRT. Patients with LV lead located in the recommended site were assigned to the recommended group, and those located in the non-recommended site were assigned to the non-recommended group.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised of 76 patients, including 54 (71.1%) in the recommended group and 22 (28.9%) in the non-recommended group. Among the recommended group, 74.1% of the patients responded to CRT, while 36.4% in the non-recommended group were responders (P = .002). Compared to pacing at the non-recommended segments, pacing at the recommended segments showed an independent association with an increased response by univariate and multivariable analysis (odds ratio 5.00, 95% confidence interval 1.73-14.44, P = .003; odds ratio 7.33, 95% confidence interval 1.53-35.14, P = .013). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that pacing at the recommended LV lead position demonstrated a better long-term prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that pacing at the recommended segments, by integrating of mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, is significantly associated with an improved CRT response and better long-term prognosis.

R-R' interval in the left bundle branch block predicts long-term outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy by estimating greater mechanical dyssynchrony and viable myocardium

BACKGROUND

Typical left bundle branch block (LBBB) shows 2 peaks of the R wave, which reflect activation reaching the interventricular septum (R) and posterolateral wall (R') sequentially.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship among R-R' interval (RR'), mechanical dyssynchrony, extent of viable myocardium, and long-term outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates.

METHODS

The study enrolled 49 patients (34 men; mean age: 69 ± 11 years) with LBBB who received CRT. The LBBB definition used requires the presence of mid-QRS notching in leads V1, V2, V5, V6, I, and aVL. Baseline evaluations were QRS duration (QRSd) and RR' measured from the 12-lead electrocardiogram; eyeball dyssynchrony (apical rocking and septal flash) and opposing-wall delay by speckle tracking from echocardiography, and extent of viable myocardium assessed by thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography. Primary outcomes included the combination of all-cause death and heart failure-related hospitalization.

RESULTS

RR' predicted volumetric response better than QRSd (area under the curve 0.73 vs 0.67, respectively). The long RR' group (≥48 ms) revealed more frequent eyeball dyssynchrony and significantly greater radial (SL) and circumferential dyssynchrony (AP and SL) and %viable segment than the short RR' group. In multivariate regression analysis, only RR' ≥48 ms was independently associated with higher event-free survival rates following CRT (hazard ratio 0.21; P = .014).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that RR' in complete LBBB was associated with mechanical dyssynchrony, extent of viable myocardium, and long-term outcomes following CRT.

Electrocardiographic predictors of echocardiographic response in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Update of an old story

BACKGROUND

A better selection of patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) might increase the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of the study was to investigate the association between the Strauss criteria, absence of S wave in V₅-V_6, the Selvester score and response to CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The retrospective analysis included all consecutive patients having undergone implantation of biventricular defibrillators in primary prevention between 2018 and 2020. The final analysis included 236 patients (mean age 69.7 ± 9.9; 77.5% of males). The Strauss criteria were significantly associated with CRT response (p < 0.01) with a sensitivity of 71.3% and specificity of 64.1%. The Strauss criteria along with the absence of S wave in V₅ and V₆ showed a sensitivity of 56.7%, a specificity of 82.6% and a positive predictive value of 90.5%. The Selvester score was significantly and inversely associated with CRT response (OR 0.818, 95% CI 0.75-0.89; p < 0.001). The multivariable model showed that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and QRS duration (≥140 ms in males and ≥ 130 ms in females) were independently associated with CRT response (respectively OR 0.92, CI 95% 0.86-0.98, p = 0.01 and OR 3.70, CI 95% 1.12-12.21, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Strauss criteria, especially in association with absence of S wave in V₅ and V₆, were able to increase specificity and positive predictive value for predicting CRT response. The Selvester score was inversely associated with CRT response. Finally, LVEF and QRS duration were independently associated with echocardiographic response to CRT.

Design of Mid-Q Response: A prospective, randomized trial of adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy in Asian patients

Aims

The aim of the Mid-Q Response study is to test the hypothesis that adaptive preferential left ventricular-only pacing with the AdaptivCRT algorithm has superior clinical outcomes compared to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure (HF) patients with moderately wide QRS duration (≥120 ms and <150 ms), left bundle branch block (LBBB), and normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction (PR interval ≤200 ms).

Methods

This prospective, multi-center, randomized, controlled, clinical study is being conducted at approximately 60 centers in Asia. Following enrollment and baseline assessment, eligible patients are implanted with a CRT system equipped with the AdaptivCRT algorithm and are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to have AdaptivCRT ON (Adaptive Bi-V and LV pacing) or AdaptivCRT OFF (Nonadaptive CRT). A minimum of 220 randomized patients are required for analysis of the primary endpoint, clinical composite score (CCS) at 6 months post-implant. The secondary and ancillary endpoints are all-cause and cardiovascular death, hospitalizations for worsening HF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), atrial fibrillation (AF), and cardiovascular adverse events at 6 or 12 months.

Conclusion

The Mid-Q Response study is expected to provide additional evidence on the incremental benefit of the AdaptivCRT algorithm among Asian HF patients with normal AV conduction, moderately wide QRS, and LBBB undergoing CRT implant.

Comparative effects of left bundle branch area pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy: A network meta-analysis

Background

The comparative effects of different types of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivered by biventricular pacing (BVP), His bundle pacing (HBP), and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) remain inconclusive.

Hypothesis

HBP and LBBAP may be advantageous over BVP for CRT.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies that reported the effects after BVP, HBP, and LBBAP for CRT. The effects between groups were compared by a frequentist random‐effects network meta‐analysis (NMA), by which the mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

Six articles involving 389 patients remained for the final meta‐analysis. The mean follow‐up of these studies was 8.03 ± 3.15 months. LBBAP resulted in a greater improvement in LVEF% (MD = 7.17, 95% CI = 4.31 to 10.04), followed by HBP (MD = 4.06, 95% CI = 1.09 to 7.03) compared with BVP. HBP resulted in a narrower QRS duration (MD = 31.58 ms, 95% CI = 12.75 to 50.40), followed by LBBAP (MD = 27.40 ms, 95% CI = 10.81 to 43.99) compared with BVP. No significant differences of changes in LVEF improvement and QRS narrowing were observed between LBBAP and HBP. The pacing threshold of LBBAP was significantly lower than those of BVP and HBP.

Conclusion

The NMA first found that LBBAP and HBP resulted in a greater LVEF improvement and a narrower QRS duration compared with BVP. Additionally, LBBAP resulted in similar clinical outcomes but with lower pacing thresholds, and may therefore offer advantages than does HBP for CRT.

Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has developed in an effort to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes between LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BIVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB). Consecutive patients with HF and CLBBB requiring CRT received either LBBAP or BIVP were recruited at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from February 2018 to May 2019. We assessed their implant parameters, electrocardiogram (ECG), clinical outcomes at implant and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Forty-one patients recruited including 21 for LBBAP and 20 for BIVP. Mean follow-up duration was 23.71 ± 4.44 months. LBBAP produced lower pacing thresholds, shorter procedure time and fluoroscopy duration compared to BIVP. The QRS duration was significantly narrower after LBBAP than BIVP (129.29 ± 31.46 vs. 156.85 ± 26.37 ms, p = 0.005). Notably, both LBBAP and BIVP significantly improved LVEF, LVEDD, NYHA class, and BNP compared with baseline. However, LBBAP significantly lowered BNP compared with BIVP (416.69 ± 411.39 vs. 96.07 ± 788.71 pg/ml, p = 0.007) from baseline to 24-month follow-up. Moreover, patients who received LBBAP exhibited lower number of hospitalizations than those in the BIVP group (p = 0.019). In addition, we found that patients with moderately prolonged left ventricular activation time (LVAT) and QRS notching in limb leads in baseline ECG respond better to LBBAP for CLBBB correction. LBBAP might be a relative safe and effective resynchronization therapy and as a supplement to BIVP for patients with HF and CLBBB.

The efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: A matched case-control study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) was reported to improve cardiac function by correcting complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB). Our study aimed to compare the efficacy of LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BIVP) in heart failure patients with CLBBB.

METHODS

Ten patients prospectively underwent LBBAP (LBB-CRT group) and 30 patients received BIVP (BIV-CRT group) were matched using propensity score matching. LBBAP was achieved by the trans-interventricular septum method. Echocardiography, electrocardiogram, NYHA classification, and blood B-type natriuretic peptide concentration were evaluated at preimplantation and at 6-month follow up. CRT response was defined as at least 15% decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume.

RESULTS

In the LBB-CRT group, CLBBB were successfully corrected by LBBAP with no complications. QRS duration (QRSd) significantly decreased after implantation in both groups, and the decrease of QRSd in the LBB-CRT group was significantly greater than that in the BIV-CRT group (60.80 ± 20.09 vs. 33.00 ± 21.48 ms, p = .0009). The echocardiographic measurements including left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular end-systolic diameter, and left ventricular ejection fraction significantly improved after 6 months in both groups. The response rate was significantly higher in LBB-CRT group than BIV-CRT group (100.00% vs. 63.33%, p = .038). The percentage of patients in New York Heart Association classification Grades I and II was significantly higher in the LBB-CRT group compared with that in the BIV-CRT group (median 1.5 vs. 2.0, p = .029) at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

It is effective and safe to correct CLBBB with LBBAP in heart failure patients. Compared with BIVP, LBBAP can better optimize electrical synchrony and improve cardiac function.

Myocardial viability as shown by left ventricular lead pacing threshold and improved dyssynchrony by QRS narrowing predicts the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy

INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced heart failure and dyssynchrony can benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). To predict the response to CRT, myocardial viability and improved dyssynchrony are suggested to be important.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 93 patients who underwent CRT implantation in Nagoya University Hospital. We assessed QRS narrowing the day after implantation to measure the improvement in dyssynchrony and measured the left ventricular pacing threshold (LVPT) to determine the local myocardial viability in all patients. Responders to CRT were defined as those having a greater than or equal to 15% decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume by echocardiography at their 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients (67%) were classified as responders. The QRS width before CRT implantation, QRS narrowing after implantation, left atrial diameter, septal-to-posterior wall motion delay, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, radial strain, and LVPT were significantly different between the responder and nonresponder groups. On multivariate analysis, QRS narrowing (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.05; P = 0.005) and LVPT (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.82; P = 0.011) were independent predictors of a response to CRT. We calculated the cutoff values from the receiver operating characteristic curves as 22.5 milliseconds of QRS narrowing and 1.55 V of LVPT. The response rates in patients with both predictive factors (QRS narrowing ≥ 22.5 milliseconds and LVPT ≤ 1.55 V), one factor, and no factors were 91%, 61%, and 25%, respectively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both myocardial viability and improved electrical dyssynchrony may be essential to predict a good response to CRT.