RESUMEN

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF). However, 30% of HF patients do not show any improvement in clinical status after CRT implantation. In this study, we report our echocardiography-based CRT optimization methodology, in daily practice at our CRT referral center. Methods: We included 350 ambulatory patients, who were referred to our center for optimization after CRT implantation. A protocol-driven echocardiographic approach for adjusting mechanical dyssynchrony, whereby adjusting for ventriculoventricular (VV) delays with strain and atrioventricular (AV) delays with Doppler echocardiography was performed. We defined changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes as outcome variables in the evaluation of the CRT outcomes. Results: Optimization was obtained in 288 (82%) patients. VV and AV timings were adjusted to 61% and 51%, respectively. In 3%, biventricular pacing was turned off and in 3% left ventricular (LV) only pacing was programmed. The LVEF and NYHA class showed significant improvements in all patients who underwent CRT optimization. Conclusions: CRT optimization remains valuable in improving LVEF and functional status measured using the NYHA class in all patients receiving CRT devices.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Biventricular pacing (BiVp) improves outcomes in systolic heart failure patients with electrical dyssynchrony. BiVp is delivered from epicardial left ventricular (LV) and endocardial right ventricular (RV) electrodes. Acute electrical activation changes with different LV-RV stimulation offsets can help guide individually optimized BiVp programming. We sought to study the BiVp ventricular activation with different LV-RV offsets and compare with 12-lead ECG. METHODS: In five patients with BiVp (63 ± 17-year-old, 80% male, LV ejection fraction 27 ± 6%), we evaluated acute ventricular epicardial activation, varying LV-RV offsets in 20 ms increments from -40 to 80 ms, using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) to obtain absolute ventricular electrical uncoupling (VEUabs, absolute difference in average LV and average RV activation time) and total activation time (TAT). For each patient, we calculated the correlation between ECGI and corresponding ECG (3D-QRS-area and QRS duration) with different LV-RV offsets. RESULTS: The LV-RV offset to attain minimum VEUabs in individual patients ranged 20-60 ms. In all patients, a larger LV-RV offset was required to achieve minimum VEUabs (36 ± 17 ms) or 3D-QRS-area (40 ± 14 ms) than that for minimum TAT (-4 ± 9 ms) or QRS duration (-8 ± 11 ms). In individual patients, 3D-QRS-area correlated with VEUabs (r 0.65 ± 0.24) and QRS duration correlated with TAT (r 0.95 ± 0.02). Minimum VEUabs and minimum 3D-QRS-area were obtained by LV-RV offset within 20 ms of each other in all five patients. CONCLUSIONS: LV-RV electrical uncoupling, as assessed by ECGI, can be minimized by optimizing LV-RV stimulation offset. 3D-QRS-area is a surrogate to identify LV-RV offset that minimizes LV-RV uncoupling.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

(1) Background: Periodic repetitive AV interval optimization using a device-based algorithm in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices may improve clinical outcomes. There is an unmet need to successfully transform its application into clinical routine. (2) Methods: Non-invasive imaging of cardiac electrophysiology was performed in different device programming settings of the SyncAV® algorithm in 14 heart failure patients with left bundle branch block and a PR interval ≤ 250 milliseconds to determine the shortest ventricular activation time. (3) Results: the best offset time (to be manually programmed) permitting automatic dynamic adjustment of the paced atrioventricular interval after every 256 heart beats was found to be 30 and 50 milliseconds, decreasing mean native QRS duration from 181.6 ± 23.9 milliseconds to 130.7 ± 10.0 and 130.1 ± 10.5 milliseconds, respectively (p = 0.01); this was followed by an offset of 40 milliseconds (decreasing QRS duration to 130.1 ± 12.2 milliseconds; p = 0.08). (4) Conclusions: The herein presented NICE-CRT study supports the current recommendation to program an offset of 50 milliseconds as default in patients with left bundle branch block and preserved atrioventricular conduction after implantation of a CRT device capable of SyncAV® optimization. Alternatively, offset programming of 30 milliseconds may also be applied as default programming. In patients with no or poor CRT response, additional efforts should be spent to individualize best offset programming with electrocardiographic optimization techniques.

RESUMEN

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy programmed to dynamically fuse pacing with intrinsic conduction using atrioventricular (AV) timing algorithms (e.g. SyncAV) has shown promise; however, mechanistic data are lacking. This study assessed the impact of SyncAV on electrical dyssynchrony across various pacing modalities using non-invasive epicardial electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi). METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with left bundle-branch block (median QRS duration (QRSd) 162.7 ms) and intact AV conduction (PR interval 174.0 ms) were prospectively enrolled. ECGi was performed acutely during biventricular pacing with fixed nominal AV delays (BiV) and using SyncAV (optimized for the narrowest QRSd) during: BiV + SyncAV, LV-only single-site (LVSS + SyncAV), MultiPoint pacing (MPP + SyncAV), and LV-only MPP (LVMPP + SyncAV). Dyssynchrony was quantified via ECGi (LV activation time, LVAT; RV activation time, RVAT; LV electrical dispersion index, LVEDi; ventricular electrical uncoupling index, VEU; and biventricular total activation time, VVtat). Intrinsic conduction LVAT (124 ms) was significantly reduced by BiV pacing (109 ms) (P = 0.001) and further reduced by LVSS + SyncAV (103 ms), BiV + SyncAV (103 ms), LVMPP + SyncAV (95 ms), and MPP + SyncAV (90 ms). Intrinsic RVAT (93 ms), VVtat (130 ms), LVEDi (36 ms), VEU (50 ms), and QRSd (163 ms) were reduced by SyncAV across all pacing modes. More patients exhibited minimal LVAT, VVtat, LVEDi, and QRSd with MPP + SyncAV than any other modality. CONCLUSION: Dynamic AV delay programming targeting fusion with intrinsic conduction significantly reduced dyssynchrony, as quantified by ECGi and QRSd for all evaluated pacing modes. MPP + SyncAV achieved the greatest synchrony overall but not for all patients, highlighting the value of pacing mode individualization during fusion optimization.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is often time-consuming and therefore underused in a clinical setting. Novel device-based algorithms aiming to simplify optimization include a dynamic atrioventricular delay (AVD) algorithm (SyncAV, Abbott) and multipoint pacing (MPP, Abbott). This study examines the acute effect of SyncAV and MPP on electrical synchrony in patients with newly and chronically implanted CRT devices. METHODS: Patients with SyncAV and MPP enabled devices were prospectively enrolled during implant or scheduled follow-up. Blinded 12-lead electrocardiographic acute measurements of QRS duration (QRSd) were performed for intrinsic QRSd (Intrinsic), bi-ventricular pacing (BiV), MPP, BiV with SyncAV at default offset 50 ms (BiVSyncAVdef ), BiV with SyncAV at patient-specific optimised offset (BiVSyncAVopt ), MPP with SyncAV at default offset 50 ms (MPPSyncAVdef ), and MPP with SyncAV at patient-specific optimised offset (MPPSyncAVopt ). RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled. QRSd for Intrinsic, BiV, MPP, BiVSyncAVdef , BiVSyncAVopt , MPPSyncAVdef , MPPSyncAVopt were 160.4 ± 20.6 ms, 141.0 ± 20.5 ms, 130.2 ± 17.2 ms, 121.7 ± 20.9 ms, 117.0 ± 19.0 ms, 121.2 ± 17.1 ms, 108.7 ± 16.5 ms respectively. MPPSyncAVopt led to greatest reduction of QRSd relative to Intrinsic (-31.6 ± 11.1%; p < .001), showed significantly shorter QRSd compared to all other pacing configurations (p < .001) and shortest QRSd in every patient. Shortening of QRSd was not significantly different between newly and chronically implanted devices (-51.6 ± 14.7 ms vs. -52.7 ± 21.9 ms; p = .99). CONCLUSION: SyncAV and MPP improved acute electrical synchrony in CRT. Combining both technologies with patient-specific optimization resulted in greatest improvement, regardless of time since implantation. Whats new Novel device-based algorithms like a dynamic AVD algorithm (SyncAV, Abbott) and multipoint pacing (MPP, Abbott) aim to simplify CRT optimization. Our data show that a combination of patient tailored SyncAV optimization and MPP results in greatest improvement of electrical synchrony in CRT measured by QRS duration, regardless if programmed in newly or chronically implanted devices. This is the first study to our knowledge to examine a combination of these device-based algorithms. The results help understanding the ideal ventricular excitation in heart failure.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Multipoint pacing [Multipoint™ Pacing (MPP), Abbott] via a single left ventricular lead (Quartet™ LV lead, Abbott) improves acute left ventricular (LV) function and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Aim of this study was to examine additional benefits in terms of LV reverse remodeling and CRT response by activating MPP in responders and non-responders to conventional biventricular pacing (CONV). METHODS: 43 consecutive patients receiving CRT (Quadra Assura MP™, Abbott) received LV dP/dtmax optimized CONV programming for 6 months. MPP programming with large anatomical electrode separation (> 30 mm) and basal LV1 pacing location was activated afterwards. Echocardiographic and clinical parameters were obtained at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-up (FU). The response was defined as an improvement of LVESV ≥ 15% and super-response as improvement ≥ 30% relative to baseline. RESULTS: 41 patients completed FU (one died of non-cardiac cause and one was lost to FU) and after 6 months CONV, 26 patients (63%) were classified as CRT responders. With MPP, the response rate increased to 90% (p < 0.001). Super-response also improved significantly with MPP compared to CONV (71% vs. 22%; p < 0.005). LV reverse remodeling in terms of LVESV improved significantly with MPP compared to CONV (79 ± 45 ml vs. 103 ± 64 ml; p < 0.001). NYHA-class only improved significantly with CONV relative to baseline (1,8 ± 0,7 vs. 2,7 ± 0,5; p < 0.001), but not further with MPP (1,7 ± 0,6 vs. 1,8 ± 0,7; p = 0.49). CONCLUSION: Multipoint pacing significantly improves response and super-response to CRT as well as LV reverse remodeling compared to conventional biventricular pacing.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This study aims to summarize the literature on the role of electrocardiography (ECG) in (i) patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), (ii) predicting clinical response after CRT system is implanted, and (iii) optimizing CRT programming. RECENT FINDINGS: Progress has been made in interpreting ECG beyond QRS duration and left bundle branch (LBBB) morphology to select patients for CRT. We now understand a higher chance of response to CRT in patients with atypical right bundle branch block and lower response rates in subgroups with atypical LBBB. QRS area has emerged as a novel marker to quantify baseline electrical dyssynchrony to improve patient selection. After CRT, the resultant QRS narrowing remains the most validated predictor of long-term favorable outcome. There is increasing awareness of prolonged left ventricular pacing latency hindering the desired response to CRT. There is active interest in using ECG beyond minimizing QRS duration to optimize CRT programming for maximal resynchronization. Novel strategies include fusion of paced and/or conducted wavefronts and minimization of paced QRS area. ECG remains the ubiquitous method for ventricular electrical mapping in context of CRT. The role of ECG in elucidating baseline electrical dyssynchrony to aptly select patients for this treatment continues to evolve, and ECG is increasingly being evaluated as a reliable endpoint for optimal CRT programming.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review focuses on the current advancements in optimizing patient response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). RECENT FINDINGS: It has been well known that not every patient will derive benefit from CRT, and of those that do, there are varying levels of response. Optimizing CRT begins well before device implant and involves appropriate patient selection and an understanding of the underlying substrate. After implant, there are different CRT device programming options that can be enabled to help overcome barriers as to why a patient may not respond. Given the multifaceted components of optimizing CRT and the complex patient population, multi-subspecialty clinics have been developed bringing together specialists in heart failure, electrophysiology, and imaging. Data as to whether this results in better response rates and outcomes shows promise.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIMS: Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in patients with systolic heart failure (HF) and a wide QRS interval, a substantial proportion of patients remain non-responsive. The SonR contractility sensor embedded in the right atrial lead enables individualized automatic optimization of the atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) timings. The RESPOND-CRT study investigated the safety and efficacy of the contractility sensor system in HF patients undergoing CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: RESPOND-CRT was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Patients were randomized (2:1, respectively) to receive weekly, automatic CRT optimization with SonR vs. an Echo-guided optimization of AV and VV timings. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of clinical responders (patients alive, without adjudicated HF-related events, with improvement in New York Heart Association class or quality of life), at 12 months. The study randomized 998 patients. Responder rates were 75.0% in the SonR arm and 70.4% in the Echo arm (mean difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, -1.4% to 10.6%; P < 0.001 for non-inferiority margin -10.0%) (Table 2). At an overall mean follow-up of 548 ± 190 days SonR was associated with a 35% risk reduction in HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92; log-rank P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Automatic AV and VV optimization using the contractility sensor was safe and as effective as Echo-guided AV and VV optimization in increasing response to CRT. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT01534234.

Asunto(s)