Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing for CRT upgrades in previously failed and high-risk patients in comparison with coronary sinus CRT upgrades.

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrades may be less likely to improve following intervention. Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing has been used for patients with previously failed CRT or high-risk upgrades. We compared procedural and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing coronary sinus (CS) CRT upgrades with high-risk and previously failed CRT upgrades undergoing LV endocardial upgrades. METHOD AND RESULTS: Prospective consecutive CS upgrades between 2015 and 2019 were compared with those undergoing WiSE-CRT implantation. Cardiac resynchronization therapy response at 6 months was defined as improvement in clinical composite score (CCS) and a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) ≥15%. A total of 225 patients were analysed; 121 CS and 104 endocardial upgrades. Patients receiving WiSE-CRT tended to have more comorbidities and were more likely to have previous cardiac surgery (30.9% vs. 16.5%; P = 0.012), hypertension (59.2% vs. 34.7%; P < 0.001), chronic obstructive airways disease (19.4% vs. 9.9%; P = 0.046), and chronic kidney disease (46.4% vs. 21.5%; P < 0.01) but similar LV ejection fraction (30.0 ± 8.3% vs. 29.5 ± 8.6%; P = 0.678). WiSE-CRT upgrades were successful in 97.1% with procedure-related mortality in 1.9%. Coronary sinus upgrades were successful in 97.5% of cases with a 2.5% rate of CS dissection and 5.6% lead malfunction/displacement. At 6 months, 91 WiSE-CRT upgrades and 107 CS upgrades had similar improvements in CCS (76.3% vs. 68.5%; P = 0.210) and reduction in LVESV ≥15% (54.2% vs. 56.3%; P = 0.835). CONCLUSION: Despite prior failed upgrades and high-risk patients with more comorbidities, WiSE-CRT upgrades had high rates of procedural success and similar improvements in CCS and LV remodelling with CS upgrades.

Endocardial left ventricular pacing.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure; however, 30-50% of patients fail to improve after implant. Endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing is an alternative therapy for patients who do not respond to conventional CRT or in whom placement of a lead via the coronary sinus is not possible. It enables pacing at a wide variety of sites, without restrictions due to coronary sinus anatomy, and there is evidence of superior electrical resynchronization and hemodynamic response compared with conventional epicardial CRT. In this article, we discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of endocardial LV pacing compared with conventional CRT, review the evidence for the delivery of endocardial LV pacing using both lead-based and leadless systems, and explore possible future directions of this novel technology.

Technical feasibility of leadless left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel form of conduction system pacing which can reverse left bundle branch block and deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The WiSE-CRT system delivers leadless endocardial pacing with symptomatic and left ventricular (LV) remodelling improvements following intervention. We report the technical feasibility of delivering leadless LBBAP using the WiSE-CRT system. CASE SUMMARY: In Case 1, a 57-year-old male with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and complete heart block underwent implantation of the WiSE-CRT system, using a retrograde transaortic approach, after failed conventional CRT. Temporary left bundle stimulation from the LV septum achieved superior electrical resynchronization and equivalent haemodynamic response compared to endocardial pacing at the lateral LV wall. In Case 2, an 82-year-old gentleman with tachyarrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy underwent WiSE-CRT implantation via a trans-septal inter-atrial approach, with the endocardial electrode successfully deployed in the LV septum. DISCUSSION: Here we report the first case of deployment of the WiSE-CRT endocardial electrode in the LV septum and demonstrate the technical feasibility of leadless LBBAP. Entirely leadless CRT is an attractive option for patients with venous access issues or recurrent lead complications and has previously been successful using the WiSE-CRT system and a leadless pacemaker in the right ventricle. Further studies are required to assess long-term efficacy and safety of leadless LBBAP.

Economic evaluation of a dedicated cardiac resynchronisation therapy preassessment clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Patient evaluation before cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) remains heterogeneous across centres and it is suspected a proportion of patients with unfavourable characteristics proceed to implantation. We developed a unique CRT preassessment clinic (CRT PAC) to act as a final review for patients already considered for CRT. We hypothesised that this clinic would identify some patients unsuitable for CRT through updated investigations and review. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether the CRT PAC led to savings for the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A decision tree model was made to evaluate two clinical pathways; (1) standard of care where all patients initially seen in an outpatient cardiology clinic proceeded directly to CRT and (2) management of patients in CRT PAC. RESULTS: 244 patients were reviewed in the CRT PAC; 184 patients were eligible to proceed directly for implantation and 48 patients did not meet consensus guidelines for CRT so were not implanted. Following CRT, 82.4% of patients had improvement in their clinical composite score and 57.7% had reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume ≥15%. Using the decision tree model, by reviewing patients in the CRT PAC, the total savings for the NHS was £966 880. Taking into consideration the additional cost of the clinic and by applying this model structure throughout the NHS, the potential savings could be as much as £39 million. CONCLUSIONS: CRT PAC appropriately selects patients and leads to substantial savings for the NHS. Adopting this clinic across the NHS has the potential to save £39 million.