Ablation of Complex Fractionated Electrograms Improves Outcome in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation of Over 2 Year's Duration.

AIM: There is controversy and sparse data on whether substrate based techniques in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) confer benefit in the catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), especially if long standing. We performed an observational study to assess whether substrate based ablation improved freedom from atrial arrhythmia. METHODS: A total of 286 patients undergoing first ablation procedures for persistent AF with PVI only(n = 79), PVI plus linear ablation(n = 85), or PVI plus complex fractionated electrogram (CFAE) and linear ablation(n = 107) were followed. Primary end point was freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year. RESULTS: Mean duration of pre-procedure time in AF was 28+/-27 months.There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups except a higher proportion of patients with a severely dilated LA in those receiving PVI+CFAEs+lines. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia was higher with a PVI+CFAE+lines strategy then for PVI alone (HR 1.56, 95% CI: 1.04-2.34, p=0.032) but was not higher with PVI+lines. Benefit of substrate modification was conferred for preprocedure times in AF of over 30 months. The occurrence of atrial tachycardia was higher when lines were added to the ablation strategy (HR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01-0.59, p=0.014). Freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 1 year was higher with lower patient age, use of general anaesthetic (GA), normal or mildly dilated left atrium and decreasing time in AF. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with long standing persistent AF of over 30 months duration,CFAE ablation resulted in improved freedom from atrial arrhythmia. Increased freedom from atrial arrhythmia occurs in patients who are younger and have smaller atria, and with GA procedures. Linear ablation did not improve outcome and resulted in a higher incidence of atrial tachycardia.

Improved outcome and cost effectiveness in ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation under general anaesthetic.

Aims: Outcome of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation remains suboptimal. Techniques employed to reduce arrhythmia recurrence rate are more likely to be embraced if cost-effectiveness can be demonstrated. A single-centre observational study assessed whether use of general anaesthesia (GA) in persistent AF ablation improved outcome and was cost-effective. Methods and results: Two hundred and ninety two patients undergoing first ablation procedures for persistent AF under conscious sedation or GA were followed. End points were freedom from listing for repeat ablation at 18 months and freedom from recurrence of atrial arrhythmia at 1 year. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia was higher in patients who underwent ablation under GA rather than sedation (63.9% vs. 42.3%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-2.86, P = 0.002). Significantly fewer GA patients were listed for repeat procedures (29.2% vs. 42.7%, HR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.01-2.60, P = 0.044). Despite GA procedures costing slightly more, a saving of £177 can be made per patient in our centre for a maximum of two procedures if all persistent AF ablations are performed under GA. Conclusions: In patients with persistent AF, it is both clinical and economically more effective to perform ablation under GA rather than sedation.

Development of a multiparametric score to predict left ventricular remodelling and prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIMS: Optimal delivery of CRT requires appropriate patient selection and device implantation. Echocardiographic predictors of CRT response individually appear to enhance patient selection, but do not fully reflect the complex underlying myocardial dysfunction. We hypothesized that a multiparametric approach would offer greater predictive value and sought to derive a score incorporating baseline characteristics including: dyssynchrony, LV function, and LV lead position. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were analysed from 294 patients undergoing CRT between June 2008 and December 2012. All patients were in sinus rhythm with QRS >120 ms, NYHA class II-IV, and LVEF <35%. Detailed clinical assessment including echocardiography was completed at baseline and 6 months after CRT. Response was defined as a ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume. Dyssynchrony (interventricular delay and radial strain delay), global longitudinal strain, and LV lead position were independent predictors of LV remodelling and were used to derive a predictive score which correlated with reduction in LV volume (r = - 0.5, P < 0.001) and was higher with QRS >150 ms and non-ischaemic aetiology. A cut-off score <0.6 offered the highest specificity and positive predictive value (100%) to determine non-response. A score >3.28 offered high specificity (specificity 86%, sensitivity 70%) to predict response. Survival proportion at longer term follow-up was low (21%) in the group with predictive score <0.6. CONCLUSION: A multiparametric strategy, which defines anticipated probability of response to CRT, offers potential to predict non-responders with poor long-term survival following CRT. The value of this approach in avoiding unnecessary device implantation with potential for harm requires validation in large multicentre studies.

Prognostic benefit of optimum left ventricular lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy: follow-up of the TARGET Study Cohort (Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to assess the impact of left ventricular (LV) lead position on longer-term survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: An optimal LV lead position in CRT is associated with improved clinical outcome. A strategy of speckle-tracking echocardiography can be used to guide the implanter to the site of latest activation and away from segments of low strain amplitude (scar). Long-term, prospective survival data according to LV lead position in CRT are limited. METHODS: Data from a follow-up registry of 250 consecutive patients receiving CRT between June 2008 and July 2010 were studied. The study population comprised patients recruited to the derivation group and the subsequent TARGET (Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) randomized, controlled trial. Final LV lead position was described, in relation to the pacing site determined by pre-procedure speckle-tracking echocardiography, as optimal (concordant/adjacent) or suboptimal (remote). All-cause mortality was recorded at follow-up. RESULTS: An optimal LV lead position (n = 202) conferred LV remodeling response superior to that of a suboptimal lead position (change in LV end-systolic volume: -24 ± 15% vs. -12 ± 17% [p < 0.001]; change in ejection fraction: +7 ± 8% vs. +4 ± 7% [p = 0.02]). During long-term follow-up (median: 39 months; range: <1 to 61 months), an optimal LV lead position was associated with improved survival (log-rank p = 0.003). A suboptimal LV lead placement independently predicted all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.8; p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: An optimal LV lead position at the site of latest mechanical activation, avoiding low strain amplitude (scar), was associated with superior CRT response and improved survival that persisted during follow-up.

Radial strain delay based on segmental timing and strain amplitude predicts left ventricular reverse remodeling and survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Dyssynchrony assessment based on the timing of regional contraction is inherently independent of underlying myocardial contractility. We tested the hypothesis that patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) would be enhanced using a parameter derived from the net radial strain delay (RSD) for the 12 basal and mid-left ventricular segments (calculated radial strain delay RSD [RSDc]), based on not only timing but also amplitude of segmental strain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Echocardiographic data were analyzed in 240 patients with symptomatic heart failure undergoing CRT (New York Heart Association class III/IV; QRS >120 milliseconds; ejection fraction, 23±7%). RSDc was calculated as the sum of difference between peak radial strain and radial strain at aortic valve closure before CRT implantation. CRT response was defined as >15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months. In a derivation group (n=102), RSDc was higher in responders compared with nonresponders (74±39% versus 29±15%; P<0.001) and related to the change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (r=-0.53; P<0.001). RSDc >40% predicted remodeling (sensitivity, 87%; specificity, 88%). In the validation group (n=108), RSDc similarly predicted response (sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 84%). Survival at long-term follow-up was greater in patients with RSDc >40% (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RSDc, based on both the timing and the amplitude of segmental strain, has a strong predictive value for CRT remodeling response and long-term survival.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization using noninvasive cardiac output measurement.

AIMS: Noninvasive cardiac output (CO) measurement (NICOM) is a novel method to assess ventricular function and offers a potential alternative for optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. We compared the effect of NICOM-based optimization to no optimization (empiric settings) on CRT outcomes. METHODS: Two hundred and three patients undergoing CRT were assessed in two consecutive nonrandomized groups; an empiric group (n = 54) was programmed to "out of the box" settings with a fixed AV delay of 120 ms and a VV delay of 0 ms; and the optimization group (n = 149) underwent adjustments of both the AV and VV delays according to the greatest improvement in resting CO. The primary endpoints were improvements in left ventricular (LV) volumes and function from baseline at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, quality of life score, and 6-minute walk test (6 MWT) performance. RESULTS: After 6 months of CRT, the optimization group had a better clinical response with lower NYHA class (2.1 ± 0.8 vs 2.4 ± 0.8, P = 0.048) and quality of life scores (35 ± 18 vs 42 ± 20, P = 0.045) but no differences in 6-MWT performance (269 ± 110 vs 277 ± 114 m, P = 0.81). Echocardiographic response was also better in the optimization group with lower LV end systolic volume (108 ± 51 vs 126 ± 60 mL, P = 0.048) and higher ejection fraction (30 ± 7 vs 27 ± 8, P = 0.01) compared to empiric settings. CONCLUSION: Device optimization using noninvasive measures of CO is associated with better clinical and echocardiographic response compared to empiric settings.

Impact of VV optimization in relation to left ventricular lead position: an acute haemodynamic study.

AIMS: Left ventricular (LV) lead placement to the most delayed segment offers the greatest potential benefit to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We assessed the impact of interventricular (VV) optimization on acute changes in cardiac output (CO) in patients with and without LV pacing of the most delayed segment. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 124 patients, the most delayed segment was defined by speckle tracking radial strain and the LV lead position by biplane fluoroscopy. Patients were classified as either a concordant (LV lead at latest site), adjacent (within one segment), or remote (two or more segments away) LV lead. Atrioventricular (AV) and VV delays were optimized by echocardiography. Cardiac output was measured non-invasively and a >20% increase in CO from baseline (intrinsic) defined acute response. Changes in CO in patients with concordant, adjacent, or remote LV leads were recorded following atrioventricular optimization alone (AV OPT) and after combined AV and VV optimization (AV/VV OPT). Compared with AV OPT pacing, AV/VV OPT produced a greater rise in CO (5.45 ± 1.1 vs. 5.76 ± 1.2 L/min, P< 0.001) and higher acute response rates (48.4 vs. 61.3%, P= 0.041). In adjacent patients, compared with AV OPT pacing, AV/VV OPT settings increased the response rate from 36.4 to 63.6% (P= 0.037). VV optimization had no effect on acute response rates in patients with remote (26.7 vs. 33.3%, P = 0.581) or concordant LV leads (65.6 vs. 72.1%, P = 0.438). CONCLUSION: VV optimization overcomes some but not all of the deleterious effects of a suboptimal LV lead position.

The impact of the right ventricular lead position on response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Left ventricular (LV) lead placement to the latest contracting area (concordant LV lead) is associated with better response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) compared to a discordant LV lead. However, the effect of the right ventricular (RV) lead site on CRT response is unclear. We investigated the relationship of the RV and LV lead positions on CRT response. METHODS: In 131 CRT patients, the LV lead was positioned preferentially in a lateral or posterolateral vein and the RV lead to either the RV septum (RVS, n = 55) or RV apex (RVA, n = 76). The latest site of contraction was determined with two-dimensional speckle tracking radial strain imaging and patients had a concordant LV lead position if pacing the latest segment, and discordant if not. Response was defined as ≥15% reduction in LV end systolic volume (LVESV) at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean reduction of LVESV at follow-up (RVS vs RVA: -23.3 ± 16% vs 22.1 ± 18%, P = 0.70) or rate of responders (58.2% vs 57.9%, P = 0.97) between the two groups. In patients with a concordant LV lead (n = 71), the response rate was significantly higher than those with a discordant lead (76.1% vs 36.7%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in outcomes in patients with a concordant or discordant LV lead according to the RV lead location. CONCLUSION: The extent of LV reverse remodeling following CRT is not related to the RV lead position, but is significantly higher in patients with a concordant LV lead.

Non-invasive cardiac output measurements based on bioreactance for optimization of atrio- and interventricular delays.

AIMS: Non-invasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM) based on bio-reactance offers a portable method to assess ventricular function. Optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by echocardiography is labour-intensive. We compared the ability of NICOM and echocardiography to facilitate optimum CRT device programming. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-seven patients in sinus rhythm were evaluated within 14 days of CRT implantation. The atrio- (AV) and interventricular (VV) delay intervals were incrementally adjusted and at each setting, NICOM and echocardiographic data were recorded. Left ventricular (LV) volumes and function were assessed by echocardiography at baseline and 3 months. Response to CRT was defined as a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) by >15%. In all patients, cardiac output (CO) increased significantly at optimized settings compared with baseline (5.66 +/- 1.4 vs. 4.35 +/- 1.1 L/min, P < 0.001). A 20% increase in acute CO following CRT predicted LVESV reduction of >15% with a sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 92% (AUC 0.86). The optimum AV delay determined by NICOM was confirmed by echocardiography in 40 of 47 patients (85%, r = 0.89, P < 0.01) and for VV delay in 39 of 47 patients (83%, r = 0.89, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Non-invasive cardiac output monitoring is a simple, reliable, and portable alternative to echocardiography to program CRT devices.