Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction-A Phenotype Waiting to Be Explored.

Heart failure (HF) presents a significant global health challenge recognised by frequent hospitalisation and high mortality rates. The assessment of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) plays a crucial role in diagnosing and predicting outcomes in HF, leading to its classification into preserved (HFpEF), reduced (HFrEF), and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) EF. HFmrEF shares features of both HFrEF and HFpEF but also exhibits distinct characteristics. Despite advancements, managing HFmrEF remains challenging due to its diverse presentation. Large-scale studies are needed to identify the predictors of clinical outcomes and treatment responses. Utilising biomarkers for phenotyping holds the potential for discovering new treatment targets. Given the uncertainty surrounding optimal management, individualised approaches are imperative for HFmrEF patients. This chapter examines HFmrEF, discusses the rationale for its re-classification, and elucidates HFmrEF's key attributes. Furthermore, it provides a comprehensive review of current treatment strategies for HFmrEF patients.

Efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: Select site - cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is typically attempted with biventricular (BiV) pacing. One-third of patients are nonresponders. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been evaluated as an alternative means. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and clinical response of permanent LBBAP as an alternative to BiV pacing. METHODS: Of 479 consecutive patients referred with heart failure, 50 with BiV-CRT and 51 with LBBAP-CRT were included in this analysis after study exclusions. Quality-of-Life (QoL) assessments, echocardiographic measurements, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class were obtained at baseline and at 6-monthly intervals. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups (all P > .05). Clinical outcomes such as left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-systolic volume, QoL, and NYHA class were significantly improved for both pacing groups compared to baseline. The LBBAP-CRT group showed greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 months (P = .001) and 12 months (P = .021), accompanied by greater reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (P = .007). QRS duration < 120 ms (baseline 160.82 ± 21.35 ms vs 161.08 ± 24.48 ms) was achieved in 30% in the BiV-CRT group vs 71% in the LBBAP-CRT group (P ≤ .001). Improvement in NYHA class (P = .031) and QoL index was greater (P = .014). Reduced heart failure admissions (P = .003) and health care utilization (P < .05) and improved lead performance (P < .001) were observed in the LBBAP-CRT group. CONCLUSION: LBBAP-CRT is feasible and effective CRT. It results into a meaningful improvement in QoL and reduction in health care utilization. This can be offered as an alternative to BiV-CRT or potentially as first-line therapy.

Electrocardiographic predictors of clinical outcomes in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with left bundle branch area pacing cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Paced QRS morphology may vary during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) as per the pacing location. It remains unclear whether electrocardiographic changes observed during LBBAP can predict clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess correlation between characteristics of paced QRS on electrocardiogram and clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS: Of 79 consecutive HF patients receiving LBBAP, 59 patients were included in this prospective study after exclusions. LBBAP was performed using Medtronic 3830 lead. Patients were categorized into various groups based on paced QRS morphology in lead V1 (qR and Qr), QRS axis (normal, left or right) and V6 R wave peak time (RWPT, ≤80 or >80 ms) to compare echocardiographic outcomes. RESULTS: RWPT was significantly shorter (75.7±17.5 vs 85.3±11.3 ms, P=0.014), transition during threshold test more commonly observed (81.5% vs 53%, P=0.02) and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in qR group (21.4±6.4 vs 16.4±8.3%, P=0.013) compared to Qr group. RWPT or LVEF did not differ in patients with different paced QRS axis (P>0.05). While qR morphology and presence of transition during threshold test independently predicted LVEF improvement, RWPT lacked predictive value. Non-responders had greater incidence of loss of 'R' prime (P=0.009) and prolonged RWPT (P=0.003) on follow up compared to average and super-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Paced qR morphology and transition during threshold test predicted greater improvement in LVEF while RWPT lacked predictive value. Loss of terminal 'R' in lead V1 and prolongation of RWPT on follow up prognosticated non-response to LBBAP.

Correlation of extent of left ventricular endocardial unipolar low-voltage zones with ventricular tachycardia in nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Endocardial electrogram (EGM) characteristics in nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) have not been explored adequately for prognostication. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to study correlation of bipolar and unipolar EGM characteristics with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) in NICM. METHODS: Electroanatomic mapping of the left ventricle was performed. EGM characteristics were correlated with LVEF. Differences between groups with and without VT and predictors of VT were studied. RESULTS: In 43 patients, unipolar EGM variables had better correlation with baseline LVEF than bipolar EGM variables: unipolar voltage (r = +0.36), peak negative unipolar voltage (r = -0.42), peak positive unipolar voltage (r = +0.38), and percentage area of unipolar low-voltage zone (LVZ; r = -0.41). Global mean unipolar voltage (hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.8), extent of unipolar LVZ (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3), and percentage area of unipolar LVZ (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3) were significant predictors of VT. For classification of patients with VT, extent of unipolar LVZ had an area under the curve of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .001), and percentage area of unipolar LVZ had an area under the curve of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.96; P = .01). Cutoff of >3 segments for extent of unipolar LVZ had the best diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 67%) and cutoff of 33% for percentage area of unipolar LVZ had the best diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, 95%; specificity, 60%) for VT. CONCLUSION: In NICM, extent and percentage area of unipolar LVZs are significant predictors of VT. Cutoffs of >3 segments of unipolar LVZ and >33% area of unipolar LVZ have good diagnostic accuracies for association with VT.