Pacing interventions in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) represent a high-risk, and difficult to treat population of heart failure patients. Studies have shown that these patients have a lower quality of life and reduced life expectancy compared to those who respond to CRT. Whilst the first-line treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure is "conventional" biventricular epicardial CRT, a range of novel pacing interventions have emerged as potential alternatives. This has raised the question whether these new treatments may be useful as a second-line pacing intervention for treating non-responders, or indeed, whether some patients may benefit from these as a first-line option. In this review, we will examine the current evidence for four pacing interventions in the context of treatment of conventional CRT non-responders: CRT optimization; multisite left ventricular pacing; left ventricular endocardial pacing and conduction system pacing.

Leadless biventricular left bundle and endocardial lateral wall pacing versus left bundle only pacing in left bundle branch block patients

Biventricular endocardial (BIV-endo) pacing and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Both pacing methods can be delivered through leadless pacing, to avoid risks associated with endocardial or transvenous leads. We used computational modelling to quantify synchrony induced by BIV-endo pacing and LBP through a leadless pacing system, and to investigate how the right-left ventricle (RV-LV) delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect response. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of His-Purkinje networks with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Leadless biventricular (BIV) pacing was simulated by adding an RV apical stimulus and an LV lateral wall stimulus (BIV-endo lateral) or targeting the left bundle (BIV-LBP), with an RV-LV delay set to 5 ms. To test effect of prolonged RV-LV delays and RV pacing location, the RV-LV delay was increased to 35 ms and/or the RV stimulus was moved to the RV septum. BIV-endo lateral pacing was less sensitive to increased RV-LV delays, while RV septal pacing worsened response compared to RV apical pacing, especially for long RV-LV delays. To investigate how left bundle capture affects response, we computed 90% BIV activation times (BIVAT-90) during BIV-LBP with selective and non-selective capture, and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), simulated by pacing 1 cm below the left bundle. Non-selective LBP was comparable to selective LBP. LBBAP was worse than selective LBP (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 62.7 ± 6.5, p < 0.01), but it still significantly reduced activation times from baseline. Finally, we compared leadless LBP with RV pacing against optimal LBP delivery through a standard lead system by simulating BIV-LBP and selective LBP alone with and without optimized atrioventricular delay (AVD). Although LBP alone with optimized AVD was better than BIV-LBP, when AVD optimization was not possible BIV-LBP outperformed LBP alone, because the RV pacing stimulus shortened RV activation (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 66.9 ± 5.1 ms, p < 0.01). BIV-endo lateral pacing or LBP delivered through a leadless system could potentially become an alternative to standard CRT. RV-LV delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect leadless pacing efficacy and should be considered in future trial designs.

Leadless Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: Advances, Challenges and Future Directions

Leadless left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) represents the merger of two rapidly progressing areas in the field of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). It combines the attractive concepts of pacing the native conduction system to allow more physiological activation of the myocardium than conventional biventricular pacing, with the potential added benefits of avoiding long-term complications associated with transvenous leads via leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing. This perspective article will first review the evidence for the efficacy of leadless pacing in CRT. We then summarise the procedural steps and pilot data for leadless LBBAP, followed by a discussion of the safety and efficacy of this novel technique. Finally, we will examine how further mechanistic evidence may shed light to which patients may benefit most from leadless LBBAP, and how improvements in current experience and technology could promote widespread uptake and expand current clinical indications.

Leadless Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy is an important intervention to reduce mortality and morbidity, but even in carefully selected patients approximately 30% fail to improve. This has led to alternative pacing approaches to improve patient outcomes. Left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing allows pacing at site-specific locations that enable the operator to avoid myocardial scar and target areas of latest activation. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) provides a more physiological activation pattern and may allow effective cardiac resynchronisation. This article discusses LV endocardial pacing in detail, including the indications, techniques and outcomes. It discusses LBBAP, its potential benefits over His bundle pacing and procedural outcomes. Finally, it concludes with the future role of endocardial pacing and LBBAP in heart failure patients.

Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing in nonresponders to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Endocardial pacing may be beneficial in patients who fail to improve following conventional epicardial cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The potential to pace anywhere inside the left ventricle thus avoiding myocardial scar and targeting the latest activating segments may be particularly important. The WiSE-CRT system (EBR systems, Sunnyvale, CA) reliably produces wireless, endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether this system improved symptoms or led to LV remodeling in patients who were nonresponders to conventional CRT.

METHOD

An international, multicenter registry of patients who were nonresponders to conventional CRT and underwent implantation with the WiSE-CRT system was collected.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were included; 20 patients underwent successful implantation with confirmation of endocardial biventricular pacing and in 2 patients, there was a failure of electrode capture. Eighteen patients proceeded to 6-month follow-up; endocardial pacing resulted in a significant reduction in QRS duration compared with intrinsic QRS duration (26.6 ± 24.4 ms; P = .002) and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (4.7 ± 7.9%; P = .021). The mean reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic volume was 8.3 ± 42.3 cm³ (P = .458) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) was 13.1 ± 44.3 cm³ (P = .271), which were statistically nonsignificant. Overall, 55.6% of patients had improvement in their clinical composite score and 66.7% had a reduction in LVESV ≥15% and/or absolute improvement in LVEF ≥5%.

CONCLUSION

Nonresponders to conventional CRT have few remaining treatment options. We have shown in this high-risk patient group that the WiSE-CRT system results in improvement in their clinical composite scores and leads to LV remodeling.

Complications associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrades versus de novo implantations

INTRODUCTION

A significant number of patients undergo upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). These patients tend to differ from individuals undergoing de novo CRT implantations both in terms of their baseline demographics and the etiology underlying their heart failure. Areas covered: There are several factors that need to be considered when upgrading patients to CRT, such as, venous patency. Potentially, these conditions can cause issues which may result in procedures being more difficult than de novo implantations. This article discusses these issues and compares the rates of procedural-related complications for CRT upgrades and de novo implantations. It discusses the proportion of patients that are likely to respond to CRT with each intervention. Expert commentary: Understanding the relative risks of CRT upgrades versus de novo implantations is important to help operators select the correct initial device and counsel patients accordingly. Growing experience with image-guided implantations and endocardial pacing may prove to be particularly relevant to patients undergoing CRT upgrades.

Dual-site right ventricular pacing in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy: Results of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Dual-site right ventricular pacing (Dual RV) has been proposed as an alternative for patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with a failure to deliver a coronary sinus (CS) lead. Only short-term hemodynamic and echocardiographic results of Dual RV are available. We aimed to assess the long-term results of Dual RV and its impact on survival.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective assessment of all CRT implants during a 12-year period. Patients with failed CS lead implantation, treated with Dual RV, were followed and assessed for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and/or heart transplant. A control group was obtained from contemporary patients using propensity matching for all available baseline variables.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were implanted with Dual RV devices and compared with 93 matched controls. During a median of 1,273 days (interquartile range 557-2,218), intention-to-treat analysis showed that all-cause mortality and/or heart transplant was higher in the Dual RV group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.47, P = 0.012). As-treated analysis yielded similar results (HR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.31-2.96, P = 0.001). Cardiac device-related infections occurred seven times more frequently in the Dual RV site group (HR = 7.60, 95% CI 1.51-38.33, P = 0.014). Among Dual RV nonresponders, four had their apical leads switched off, five required an epicardial LV lead insertion, a transseptal LV lead was implanted in two, and in nine patients, after reviewing the CS venogram, a new CS lead insertion was successfully attempted.

CONCLUSION

Dual RV pacing is associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher complication rates than conventional CRT.

Optimized Left Ventricular Endocardial Stimulation Is Superior to Optimized Epicardial Stimulation in Ischemic Patients With Poor Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Combined Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Electroanatomic Contact Mapping, and Hemodynamic Study to Target Endocardial Lead Placement

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify the optimal pacing site for the left ventricular (LV) lead in ischemic patients with poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

BACKGROUND

LV endocardial pacing may offer benefit over conventional CRT in ischemic patients.

METHODS

We performed cardiac magnetic resonance, invasive electroanatomic mapping (EAM), and measured the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) in patients with existing CRT systems.

RESULTS

In all, 135 epicardial and endocardial pacing sites were tested in 8 patients. Endocardial pacing was superior to epicardial pacing with respect to mean AHR (% change in dP/dt_max vs. baseline) (11.81 [-7.2 to 44.6] vs. 6.55 [-11.0 to 19.7]; p = 0.025). This was associated with a similar first ventricular depolarization (Q-LV) (75 ms [13 to 161 ms] vs. 75 ms [25 to 129 ms]; p = 0.354), shorter stimulation-QRS duration (15 ms [7 to 43 ms] vs. 19 ms [5 to 66 ms]; p = 0.010) and shorter paced QRS duration (149 ms [95 to 218 ms] vs. 171 ms [120 to 235 ms]; p < 0.001). The mean best achievable AHR was higher with endocardial pacing (25.64 ± 14.74% vs. 12.64 ± 6.76%; p = 0.044). Furthermore, AHR was significantly greater pacing the same site endocardially versus epicardially (15.2 ± 10.7% vs. 7.6 ± 6.3%; p = 0.014) with a shorter paced QRS duration (137 ± 22 ms vs. 166 ± 30 ms; p < 0.001) despite a similar Q-LV (70 ± 38 ms vs. 79 ± 34 ms; p = 0.512). Lack of capture due to areas of scar (corroborated by EAM and cardiac magnetic resonance) was associated with a poor AHR.

CONCLUSIONS

In ischemic patients with poor CRT response, biventricular endocardial pacing is superior to epicardial pacing. This may reflect accessibility to sites that cannot be reached via coronary sinus anatomy and/or by access to more rapidly conducting tissue. Furthermore, guidance to the optimal LV pacing site may be aided by modalities such as cardiac magnetic resonance to target delayed activating sites while avoiding scar.

Improvement of Right Ventricular Hemodynamics with Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing during Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular epicardial (BV‐CS) or endocardial left ventricular (LV) stimulation (BV‐EN) improves LV hemodynamics. The effect of CRT on right ventricular function is less clear, particularly for BV‐EN. Our objective was to compare the simultaneous acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of the right and left ventricles (RV and LV) with BV‐CS and BV‐EN in order to determine the optimal mode of CRT delivery.

Methods

Nine patients with previously implanted CRT devices successfully underwent a temporary pacing study. Pressure wires measured the simultaneous AHR in both ventricles during different pacing protocols. Conventional epicardial CRT was delivered in LV‐only (LV‐CS) and BV‐CS configurations and compared with BV‐EN pacing in multiple locations using a roving decapolar catheter.

Results

Best BV‐EN (optimal AHR of all LV endocardial pacing sites) produced a significantly greater RV AHR compared with LV‐CS and BV‐CS pacing (P < 0.05). RV AHR had a significantly increased standard deviation compared to LV AHR (P < 0.05) with a weak correlation between RV and LV AHR (Spearman r_s = −0.06). Compromised biventricular optimization, whereby RV AHR was increased at the expense of a smaller decrease in LV AHR, was achieved in 56% of cases, all with BV‐EN pacing.

Conclusions

BV‐EN pacing produces significant increases in both LV and RV AHR, above that achievable with conventional epicardial pacing. RV AHR cannot be used as a surrogate for optimizing LV AHR; however, compromised biventricular optimization is possible. The beneficial effect of endocardial LV pacing on RV function may have important clinical benefits beyond conventional CRT.

Effects of Epicardial and Endocardial Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Coronary Flow: Insights From Wave Intensity Analysis

Background

The increase in global coronary flow seen with conventional biventricular pacing is mediated by an increase in the dominant backward expansion wave (BEW). Little is known about the determinants of flow in the left‐sided epicardial coronary arteries beyond this or the effect of endocardial pacing stimulation on coronary physiology.

Methods and Results

Eleven patients with a chronically implanted biventricular pacemaker underwent an acute hemodynamic and electrophysiological study. Five of 11 patients also took part in a left ventricular endocardial pacing protocol at the same time. Conventional biventricular pacing, delivered epicardially from the coronary sinus, resulted in a 9% increase in flow (average peak velocity) in the left anterior descending artery (LAD), mediated by a 13% increase in the area under the BEW (P=0.004). Endocardial pacing resulted in a 27% increase in LAD flow, mediated by a 112% increase in the area under the forward compression wave (FCW) and a 43% increase in the area under the BEW (P=0.048 and P=0.036, respectively). There were no significant changes in circumflex parameters. Conventional biventricular pacing resulted in homogenization of timing of coronary flow compared with baseline (mean difference in time to peak in the LAD versus circumflex artery: FCW 39 ms [baseline] versus 3 ms [conventional biventricular pacing], P=0.008; BEW 47 ms [baseline] versus 8 ms [conventional biventricular pacing], P=0.004).

Conclusions

Epicardial and endocardial pacing result in increased coronary flow in the left anterior descending artery and homogenization of the timing of waves that determine flow in the LAD and the circumflex artery. The increase in both the FCW and the BEW with endocardial pacing may be the result of a more physiological activation pattern than that of epicardial pacing, which resulted in an increase of only the BEW.

Impact of pacing site on QRS duration and its relationship to hemodynamic response in cardiac resynchronization therapy for congestive heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have demonstrated that left ventricular (LV) pacing site is a critical parameter in optimizing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The present study evaluates the effect of pacing from different LV locations on QRS duration (QRSd) and their relationship to acute hemodynamic response in congestive heart failure patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-five patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block referred for CRT device implantation were studied. Eleven predetermined LV pacing sites were systematically assessed in random order: epicardial: coronary sinus (CS); endocardial: basal and mid-cavity (septal, anterior, lateral, and inferior), apex, and the endocardial site facing the CS pacing site. For each patient QRSd and +dP/dtmax during baseline (AAI) and DDD LV pacing at 2 atrioventricular delays were compared. Response to CRT was significantly better in patients with wider baseline QRSd (≥150 milliseconds). Hemodynamic response was inversely correlated to increase of QRSd during LV pacing (short atrioventricular [AV] delay: r = 0.44, P < 0.001; long AV delay: r = 0.59, P < 0.001). Compared to baseline, LV pacing at the site of shortest QRSd significantly improved +dP/dtmax (+18 ± 25%, P < 0.001) but was not superior to other conventional strategy (lateral wall, CS pacing, and echo-guided) and was inferior to a hemodynamically guided strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, we have demonstrated that changes of QRSd during LV pacing correlated with acute hemodynamic response and that LV pacing location was a primary determinant of paced QRSd. Although QRSd did not predict the maximum hemodynamic response, our results confirm the link between electrical activation and hemodynamic response of the LV during CRT.

Endocardial pacemaker implantation in neonates and infants

Transvenous pacemaker lead implantation is the preferred method of pacing in adult patients. Lead performance and longevity are superior and the implantation approach can be performed under local anaesthetic with a very low morbidity. In children, and especially in neonates and infants, the epicardial route was traditionally chosen until the advent of smaller generators and lead implantation techniques that allowed growth of the child without lead displacement. Endocardial implantation is not universally accepted, however, as there is an incidence of venous occlusion of the smaller veins of neonates and infants with concerns for loss of venous access in the future. Growing experience with lower profile leads, however, reveals that endocardial pacing too can be performed with low morbidity and good long-term results in neonates and infants.