Pacing therapy for atrioventricular dromotropathy: a combined computational-experimental-clinical study.

AIMS: Investigate haemodynamic effects, and their mechanisms, of restoring atrioventricular (AV)-coupling using pacemaker therapy in normal and failing hearts in a combined computational-experimental-clinical study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Computer simulations were performed in the CircAdapt model of the normal and failing human heart and circulation. Experiments were performed in a porcine model of AV dromotropathy. In a proof-of-principle clinical study, left ventricular (LV) pressure and volume were measured in 22 heart failure (HF) patients (LV ejection fraction <35%) with prolonged PR interval (>230 ms) and narrow or non-left bundle branch block QRS complex. Computer simulations and animal studies in normal hearts showed that restoring of AV-coupling with unchanged ventricular activation sequence significantly increased LV filling, mean arterial pressure, and cardiac output by 10-15%. In computer simulations of failing hearts and in HF patients, reducing PR interval by biventricular (BiV) pacing (patients: from 300 ± 61 to 137 ± 30 ms) resulted in significant increases in LV stroke volume and stroke work (patients: 34 ± 40% and 26 ± 31%, respectively). However, worsening of ventricular dyssynchrony by using right ventricular (RV) pacing abrogated the benefit of restoring AV-coupling. In model simulations, animals and patients, the increase of LV filling and associated improvement of LV pump function coincided with both larger mitral inflow (E- and A-wave area) and reduction of diastolic mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSION: Restoration of AV-coupling by BiV pacing in normal and failing hearts with prolonged AV conduction leads to considerable haemodynamic improvement. These results indicate that BiV or physiological pacing, but not RV pacing, may improve cardiac function in patients with HF and prolonged PR interval.

Atrioventricular dromotropathy: evidence for a distinctive entity in heart failure with prolonged PR interval?

Heart failure (HF) is often accompanied by atrioventricular (AV) conduction disturbance, represented by prolongation of the PR interval on the electrocardiogram. Studies suggest that PR prolongation exists in at least 10% of HF patients, and it seems more prevalent in the presence of prolonged QRS duration. A prolonged PR interval may result in elevated left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic pressure, diastolic mitral regurgitation, and reduced LV pump function. This seems especially the case in patients with heart disease, in whom it is associated with an increased risk for atrial fibrillation, advanced AV heart block, HF, and death. These findings point towards the importance of proper AV coupling in HF patients. A few studies, strongly differing in design, suggest that restoration of AV coupling in patients with PR prolongation by pacing improves cardiac function and clinical outcomes. These observations argue for AV-dromotropathy as a potential target for pacing therapy, but other studies show inconsistent results. Given its potential clinical implications, restoration of AV coupling by pacing warrants further investigation. Additional possible future research goals include assessing different techniques to measure compromised AV coupling, determine the best site(s) of ventricular pacing, and assess a potential influence of diastolic mitral regurgitation in the efficacy of such therapy.

Left Ventricular Lead Placement Guided by Reduction in QRS Area.

Background: Reduction in QRS area after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with improved long-term clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the reduction in QRS area is associated with hemodynamic improvement by pacing different LV sites and can be used to guide LV lead placement. Methods: Patients with a class Ia/IIa CRT indication were prospectively included from three hospitals. Acute hemodynamic response was assessed as the relative change in maximum rate of rise of left ventricular (LV) pressure (%∆LVdP/dtmax). Change in QRS area (∆QRS area), in QRS duration (∆QRS duration), and %∆LVdP/dtmax were studied in relation to different LV pacing locations within a patient. Results: Data from 52 patients paced at 188 different LV pacing sites were investigated. Lateral LV pacing resulted in a larger %∆LVdP/dtmax than anterior or posterior pacing (p = 0.0007). A similar trend was found for ∆QRS area (p = 0.001) but not for ∆QRS duration (p = 0.23). Pacing from the proximal electrode pair resulted in a larger %∆LVdP/dtmax (p = 0.004), and ∆QRS area (p = 0.003) but not ∆QRS duration (p = 0.77). Within patients, correlation between ∆QRS area and %∆LVdP/dtmax was 0.76 (median, IQR 0.35; 0,89). Conclusion: Within patients, ∆QRS area is associated with %∆LVdP/dtmax at different LV pacing locations. Therefore, QRS area, which is an easily, noninvasively obtainable and objective parameter, may be useful to guide LV lead placement in CRT.

Physiology and Practicality of Left Ventricular Septal Pacing.

Left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) have been introduced to maintain or correct interventricular and intraventricular (dys)synchrony. LVSP is hypothesised to produce a fairly physiological sequence of activation, since in the left ventricle (LV) the working myocardium is activated first at the LV endocardium in the low septal and anterior free-wall regions. Animal studies as well as patient studies have demonstrated that LV function is maintained during LVSP at levels comparable to sinus rhythm with normal conduction. Left ventricular activation is more synchronous during LBBP than LVSP, but LBBP produces a higher level of intraventricular dyssynchrony compared to LVSP. While LVSP is fairly straightforward to perform, targeting the left bundle branch area may be more challenging. Long-term effects of LVSP and LBBP are yet to be determined. This review focuses on the physiology and practicality of LVSP and provides a guide for permanent LVSP implantation.

Association of ECG characteristics with clinical and echocardiographic outcome to CRT in a non-LBBB patient population.

PURPOSE: Effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients without left bundle branch block (non-LBBB) QRS morphology is limited. Additional selection criteria are needed to identify these patients. METHODS: Seven hundred ninety consecutive patients with non-LBBB morphology, who received a CRT-device in 3 university centers in the Netherlands, were selected. Pre-implantation 12-lead ECGs were evaluated on morphology, duration, and area of the QRS complex, as well as on PR interval, left ventricular activation time (LVAT), and the presence of fragmented QRS (fQRS). Association of these ECG features with the primary endpoint: a combination of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, cardiac transplantation and all-cause mortality, and secondary endpoint-echocardiographic reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV)-were evaluated. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred more often in non-LBBB patients with with PR interval ≥ 230ms, QRS area < 109µVs, and with fQRS. Multivariable regression analysis showed independent associations of QRS area (HR 2.33 [1.44, 3.77], p = 0.001) and PR interval (HR 2.03 [1.51, 2.74], p < 0.001) only. Mean LVESV reduction was significantly lower in patients with baseline RBBB, QRS duration < 150 ms, PR interval ≥ 230 ms, and in QRS area < 109 µVs. Multivariable regression analyses only showed significant associations between QRS area ≥ 109 µVs (OR 2.00 [1.09, 3.66] p = 0.025) and probability of echocardiographic response to CRT. CONCLUSIONS: In the heterogeneous non-LBBB patient population, QRS area and PR prolongation rather than traditional QRS duration and morphology are associated to both clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of CRT.

Novel bradycardia pacing strategies.

The adverse effects of ventricular dyssynchrony induced by right ventricular (RV) pacing has led to alternative pacing strategies, such as biventricular, His bundle (HBP), LV septal (LVSP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Given the overlap, LVSP and LBBP are also collectively referred to as left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Although among these alternative pacing sites HBP is theoretically the ideal strategy as it maintains a physiological ventricular activation, its application requires more skills and is associated with the most complications. LBBAP, where the ventricular pacing lead is advanced through the interventricular septum to its left side, creates ventricular activation that is only slightly more dyssynchronous. Preliminary studies have shown that LBBAP is feasible, safe and encounters less limitations than HBP. Further studies are needed to differentiate between LVSP and LBBP with regard to acute functional and long-term clinical outcome.

Short-Term Hemodynamic and Electrophysiological Effects of Cardiac Resynchronization by Left Ventricular Septal Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is usually performed by biventricular (BiV) pacing. Previously, feasibility of transvenous implantation of a lead at the left ventricular (LV) endocardial side of the interventricular septum, referred to as LV septal (LVs) pacing, was demonstrated. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the acute electrophysiological and hemodynamic effects of LVs with BiV and His bundle (HB) pacing in CRT patients. METHODS: Temporary LVs pacing (transaortic approach) alone or in combination with right ventricular (RV) (LVs+RV), BiV, and HB pacing was performed in 27 patients undergoing CRT implantation. Electrophysiological changes were assessed using electrocardiography (QRS duration), vectorcardiography (QRS area), and multielectrode body surface mapping (standard deviation of activation times [SDAT]). Hemodynamic changes were assessed as the first derivative of LV pressure (LVdP/dtmax). RESULTS: As compared with baseline, LVs pacing resulted in a larger reduction in QRS area (to 73 ± 22 µVs) and SDAT (to 26 ± 7 ms) than BiV (to 93 ± 26 µVs and 31 ± 7 ms; both p < 0.05) and LVs+RV pacing (to 108 ± 37 µVs; p < 0.05; and 29 ± 8 ms; p = 0.05). The increase in LVdP/dtmax was similar during LVs and BiV pacing (17 ± 10% vs. 17 ± 9%, respectively) and larger than during LVs+RV pacing (11 ± 9%; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between basal, mid-, or apical LVs levels in LVdP/dtmax and SDAT. In a subgroup of 16 patients, changes in QRS area, SDAT, and LVdP/dtmax were comparable between LVs and HB pacing. CONCLUSIONS: LVs pacing provides short-term hemodynamic improvement and electrical resynchronization that is at least as good as during BiV and possibly HB pacing. These results indicate that LVs pacing may serve as a valuable alternative for CRT.