Transvenous endocardial pacing with SelectSecure™ 3830 lead in pediatric patients: case series of two infants and a literature review.

BACKGROUND: The SelectSecure™ 3830 lead is an innovative, lumenless, and thin active fixed lead with a nonretractable screw-in tip and a diameter of 4.1 Fr, making it the thinnest pacing lead available. Its high anti-extrusion properties and durability have shown favorable outcomes in cardiac pacing, especially in pediatric patients. The superfine design and easy implantation of the lead have rendered it a preferred choice in children, particularly in cases of congenital heart disease. CASE PRESENTATION: This case series presents two infant patients who underwent transvenous endocardial pacing using the SelectSecure™ 3830 lead, along with a comprehensive literature review on the topic. The study followed the patients for 5 years and 3 years, respectively, and observed stable pacing parameters, indicating a positive therapeutic outcome and safety. This article discusses the optimal age and body shape for transvenous lead implantation in infants and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of endocardial and epicardial pacing approaches. Although endocardial pacing offers several benefits such as minimal trauma, short hospital stay, and longer battery life, it may not be suitable for intracardiac shunts, and venous occlusion remains a concern. On the other hand, epicardial pacing may be considered for children with challenging endocardial access but comes with higher risk of lead failure and coronary artery compression. This study emphasizes the importance of careful follow-up in pediatric patients with pacing, as lead failure can occur in young patients owing to growth and development, leading to syncope and battery depletion. The article also underscores the significance of selecting the appropriate pacing location to minimize the impact of cardiac function, with right ventricular septal pacing emerging as a preferable option. CONCLUSIONS: The SelectSecure™ 3830 lead presents a promising solution for transvenous endocardial pacing in pediatric patients with high degree atrioventricular block and bradycardia, ensuring safe and effective pacing as they grow and develop.

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.

Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing in nonresponders to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Endocardial pacing may be beneficial in patients who fail to improve following conventional epicardial cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The potential to pace anywhere inside the left ventricle thus avoiding myocardial scar and targeting the latest activating segments may be particularly important. The WiSE-CRT system (EBR systems, Sunnyvale, CA) reliably produces wireless, endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether this system improved symptoms or led to LV remodeling in patients who were nonresponders to conventional CRT. METHOD: An international, multicenter registry of patients who were nonresponders to conventional CRT and underwent implantation with the WiSE-CRT system was collected. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included; 20 patients underwent successful implantation with confirmation of endocardial biventricular pacing and in 2 patients, there was a failure of electrode capture. Eighteen patients proceeded to 6-month follow-up; endocardial pacing resulted in a significant reduction in QRS duration compared with intrinsic QRS duration (26.6 ± 24.4 ms; P = .002) and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (4.7 ± 7.9%; P = .021). The mean reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic volume was 8.3 ± 42.3 cm3 (P = .458) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) was 13.1 ± 44.3 cm3 (P = .271), which were statistically nonsignificant. Overall, 55.6% of patients had improvement in their clinical composite score and 66.7% had a reduction in LVESV ≥15% and/or absolute improvement in LVEF ≥5%. CONCLUSION: Nonresponders to conventional CRT have few remaining treatment options. We have shown in this high-risk patient group that the WiSE-CRT system results in improvement in their clinical composite scores and leads to LV remodeling.

Understanding non-response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy: common problems and potential solutions.

Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome associated with a significant morbidity and mortality burden. Reductions in left ventricular (LV) function trigger adaptive mechanisms, leading to structural changes within the LV and the potential development of dyssynchronous ventricular activation. This is the substrate targeted during cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT); however, around 30-50% of patients do not experience benefit from this treatment. Non-response occurs as a result of pre-implant, peri-implant and post implant factors but the technical constraints of traditional, transvenous epicardial CRT mean they can be challenging to overcome. In an effort to improve response, novel alternative methods of CRT delivery have been developed and of these endocardial pacing, where the LV is stimulated from inside the LV cavity, appears the most promising.

Pacing therapy in children with isolated complete atrioventricular block: a retrospective study of pacing system survival and pacing-related complications in a national cohort.

AIMS: To evaluate pacing system survival and complications to pacemaker (PM) therapy in children with isolated complete atrioventricular block (CAVB). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a nationwide retrospective study of children diagnosed before 15 years of age with isolated CAVB and PM treatment. Between 1983 and 2012, 127 patients underwent PM-implantations at 3.2 (0-17) [median (range)] years and were followed for 11 (0.6-19) years. An endocardial or epicardial PM system was implanted in 72 and 55 patients, respectively. A total of 306 pacing leads (76% steroid-eluting) were implanted. Pacing system survival was significantly affected by age, with a higher risk of a new intervention for children aged <1 month at first implantation. Lead survival of the steroid-eluting leads at 5 and 10 years was 90 and 81%, respectively, with no difference between epicardial and endocardial systems. Complications leading to revision of the pacing system occurred in 24% of the patients. Patients aged <1 month at first PM implantation had a five-fold increased risk for a complication to occur. Dividing the cohort according to year of first procedure showed that those who had their first implantation ≥2002 had fewer complications and also lead- and pacing system survival was better in the later cohort. CONCLUSION: Pacing system survival and complications to PM therapy in young patients with isolated CAVB were significantly affected by age, with low age at PM implantation constituting a risk factor. Endocardial and epicardial pacing systems showed no significant differences in performance.

Left ventricular endocardial pacing in the real world: Five years of experience at a single center.

BACKGROUND: A left ventricular (LV) endocardial lead implant to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is feasible when a conventional implant failed due to anatomical or technical issues or when the venous implant was performed but the patient did not respond to the therapy. METHODS: Data about the implantation procedure (age, sex, clinical characteristics, anticoagulant use, and previous devices), patient characteristics (indication, technique used, lead model, complications), and follow-up (clinical and echocardiographic outcome, LV lead electrical measurements) were analyzed for all CRT systems implanted using LV endocardial lead, due to failed conventional implant or nonresponse, between April 2011 and November 2016. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were implanted with an active fixation LV endocardial lead during the study period, without significant complications. There were no dislodgements or severe complications related to the implant procedure in the follow-up period (36 ± 20 months) and a high percentage of patients responded to therapy, as assessed by several indicators. CONCLUSIONS: An LV endocardial lead implant was feasible when the conventional technique had previously failed or was not effective. A high rate of response was achieved without any significant complications.

Endocardial left ventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims: Endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy has been proposed as an alternative to conventional LV lead placement via the coronary sinus. In order to assess the relative benefits and risks of this technique, we have performed a meta-analysis of published reports. Methods and results: A systemic search was performed using online databases to identify studies of lead-based endocardial pacing. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, to assess the rate of complications and clinical response (defined as ≥1 decrease in NYHA class). We selected 23 studies, including 384 patients. The trans-atrial septal technique was used in 20 studies, 1 used the trans-ventricular apical technique, and 2 used the trans-ventricular septal technique. Mean age was 66 years, male 66%, EF 26%, NYHA class 3.0. Procedural success rates were over 95% in all studies. Clinical response was reported by 16 studies for 262 patients, giving a response estimate of 82% (95% CI 71-89%). There was significant heterogeneity, and response in the only large study was 59%. Thromboembolic (TE) complications were reported by all studies, over 22 ±32 months follow up. The rate of stroke was 2.5 events per 100 patient years (95% CI 1.5-4.3), and TIA 2.6 (1.1-6.1). The mortality rate was 4.5 (1.5-13.6) per 100 patient years. Conclusion: LV endocardial pacing appears to be a viable technique when conventional lead placement is not possible. Response rates were heterogeneous but comparable with conventional CRT. There is likely to be a small increase over expected rates of stroke, although included patients were high risk.

Atrial transseptal left ventricular lead implantation for cardiac resynchronization therapy using arteriovenous loop technique.

To date, several techniques for transseptal left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have been proposed in patients for whom routine transvenous LV pacing is infeasible. These techniques are of varying difficulty and complexity, and some requires devices not easily accessible. We herein report a simple, safe and effective approach of atrial transseptal LV lead implantation using arteriovenous loop technique in a patient for whom transvenous LV implantation lead had failed.

Update on Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices for Anesthesiologists.

With the advent of "wireless" endocardial pacing, the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and leadless pacemakers comes an added layer of complexity to the perioperative management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED). Since no formal recommendations currently exist for these new CIED technologies, preoperative identification of these devices, understanding their functionality, and developing an individualized perioperative management plan are imperative for the anesthesiologist. The following review is intended to provide the background information required to devise a successful perioperative management strategy for newer CIEDs.

His-Bundle Pacing and LV Endocardial Pacing as Alternatives to Traditional Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block. Up to a third of patients do not respond to BVP. This article reviews the utility of His-bundle pacing (HBP) and Left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing as alternatives to BVP to provide ventricular synchrony. RECENT FINDINGS: HBP has shown promising results in observational studies. By significantly narrowing or normalizing QRS, HBP has improved clinical outcomes including ejection fractions both as a rescue option in patients who failed BVP or as a primary alternative. LV endocardial pacing has also shown promise with improved clinical outcomes. Using traditional pacing leads or novel technology, direct stimulation of the LV endocardium allows for better site selection as well as a more physiological activation of the LV compared to traditional epicardial LV stimulation. HBP and LV endocardial pacing are valuable alternatives to traditional BVP to achieve CRT. Randomized clinical trials in progress will allow for a deeper understanding of how they can benefit our patients.

Inadvertent Left Ventricle Endocardial or Uncomplicated Right Ventricular Pacing: How to Differentiate in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Temporary transvenous pacemaker implantation is an important and critical procedure for emergency physicians. Traditionally, temporary pacemakers are inserted by electrocardiography (ECG) guidance in the emergency department because fluoroscopy at the bedside in an unstable patient can be limited by time and equipment availability. However, in the presence of atrial septal defect, ventricular septal defect, and patent foramen ovale, the pacemaker lead can be implanted inadvertently into the left ventricle or directly into the coronary sinus instead of right ventricle. Regular pacemaker rhythm can be achieved despite inadvertent implantation of the pacemaker lead into the left ventricle, leading to ignorance of the possibility of lead malposition. CASE REPORT: A 65-year-old female patient with hemodynamic instability and complete atrioventricular block underwent temporary pacemaker implantation via right jugular vein with ECG guidance at the emergency department. Approximately 12 h after implantation, it was noticed that the ECG revealed right bundle branch block (RBBB)-type paced QRS complexes. Diagnostic workup revealed that the lead was inadvertently located in the left ventricular apex. This case illustrates the importance of careful scrutiny of the 12-lead ECG and imaging clues in identifying lead malposition in the emergency department. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Because inadvertent left ventricle endocardial pacing carries a high risk for systemic embolization, it is important to determine whether an RBBB pattern induced by ventricular pacing is the result of a malpositioned lead or uncomplicated transvenous right ventricular pacing.

Long-term outcome of transvenous pacemaker implantation in infants: a retrospective cohort study.

AIM: Evaluation of long-term outcome of transvenous pacemaker (PM) implantation in infants. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective analysis of all transvenous PM implantations in infants <10 kg between September 1997 and October 2001 was made. Indications for PM implantation, age at implantation, and determinants of long-term outcome including cardiac function, PM function, and PM (system) complications were noted. Seven patients underwent transvenous VVI(R) PM implantation. Median age at implantation was 3 days (range: 1 day to 14 months), median weight 3.5 kg (range: 2.3-8.7 kg), and median follow-up 14 years (range: 12.3-16.3 years). Pacemaker indications were congenital complete atrioventricular block (n = 4), long QT syndrome with heart block (n = 2), and post-operative complete atrioventricular block with sinus node dysfunction (n = 1). No procedural complications were noted. Today all patients are alive and symptom free with good PM and cardiac function. Two patients underwent PM generator relocation for imminent skin necrosis and skin traction. Two patients suffered from asymptomatic left subclavian vein occlusion and developed thrombosis on the PM electrode. Three patients were converted to an epicardial PM system, due to atrial perforation after upgrading procedure (n = 1), syncope with need for implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation (n = 1), and systolic dysfunction with development of dilated cardiomyopathy, which normalized under cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing (n = 1). Two patients needed atrioventricular (AV) valve repair for severe insufficiency. Two patients underwent repositioning of dysfunctional PM leads. In five patients, transvenous leads were removed. Indications were elective lead replacement (n = 1), atrial perforation (n = 1), and switch to an epicardial system (n = 3). CONCLUSION: Transvenous PM implantation in infants (<10 kg) is associated with a high incidence of vascular occlusion, thrombosis, and severe atrioventricular valve regurgitation during long-term follow-up. We advocate an epicardial approach for PM implantation in small children.

Dual-site right ventricular pacing in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy: Results of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dual-site right ventricular pacing (Dual RV) has been proposed as an alternative for patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with a failure to deliver a coronary sinus (CS) lead. Only short-term hemodynamic and echocardiographic results of Dual RV are available. We aimed to assess the long-term results of Dual RV and its impact on survival. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective assessment of all CRT implants during a 12-year period. Patients with failed CS lead implantation, treated with Dual RV, were followed and assessed for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and/or heart transplant. A control group was obtained from contemporary patients using propensity matching for all available baseline variables. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were implanted with Dual RV devices and compared with 93 matched controls. During a median of 1,273 days (interquartile range 557-2,218), intention-to-treat analysis showed that all-cause mortality and/or heart transplant was higher in the Dual RV group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.47, P = 0.012). As-treated analysis yielded similar results (HR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.31-2.96, P = 0.001). Cardiac device-related infections occurred seven times more frequently in the Dual RV site group (HR = 7.60, 95% CI 1.51-38.33, P = 0.014). Among Dual RV nonresponders, four had their apical leads switched off, five required an epicardial LV lead insertion, a transseptal LV lead was implanted in two, and in nine patients, after reviewing the CS venogram, a new CS lead insertion was successfully attempted. CONCLUSION: Dual RV pacing is associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher complication rates than conventional CRT.

ALternate Site Cardiac ResYNChronization (ALSYNC): a prospective and multicentre study of left ventricular endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIMS: The ALternate Site Cardiac ResYNChronization (ALSYNC) study evaluated the feasibility and safety of left ventricular endocardial pacing (LVEP) using a market-released pacing lead implanted via a single pectoral access by a novel atrial transseptal lead delivery system. METHODS AND RESULTS: ALSYNC was a prospective clinical investigation with a minimum of 12-month follow-up in 18 centres of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-indicated patients, who had failed or were unsuitable for conventional CRT. The ALSYNC system comprises the investigational lead delivery system and LVEP lead. Patients required warfarin therapy post-implant. The primary study objective was safety at 6-month follow-up, which was defined as freedom from complications related to the lead delivery system, implant procedure, or the lead ≥70%. The ALSYNC study enrolled 138 patients. The LVEP lead implant success rate was 89.4%. Freedom from complications meeting the definition of primary endpoint was 82.2% at 6 months (95% CI 75.6-88.8%). In the study, 14 transient ischaemic attacks (9 patients, 6.8%), 5 non-disabling strokes (5 patients, 3.8%), and 23 deaths (17.4%) were observed. No death was from a primary endpoint complication. At 6 months, the New York Heart Association class improved in 59% of patients, and 55% had LV end-systolic volume reduction of 15% or greater. Those patients enrolled after CRT non-response showed similar improvement with LVEP. CONCLUSIONS: The ALSYNC study demonstrates clinical feasibility, and provides an early indication of possible benefit and risk of LVEP. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT01277783.

Improvement of Right Ventricular Hemodynamics with Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing during Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular epicardial (BV-CS) or endocardial left ventricular (LV) stimulation (BV-EN) improves LV hemodynamics. The effect of CRT on right ventricular function is less clear, particularly for BV-EN. Our objective was to compare the simultaneous acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of the right and left ventricles (RV and LV) with BV-CS and BV-EN in order to determine the optimal mode of CRT delivery. METHODS: Nine patients with previously implanted CRT devices successfully underwent a temporary pacing study. Pressure wires measured the simultaneous AHR in both ventricles during different pacing protocols. Conventional epicardial CRT was delivered in LV-only (LV-CS) and BV-CS configurations and compared with BV-EN pacing in multiple locations using a roving decapolar catheter. RESULTS: Best BV-EN (optimal AHR of all LV endocardial pacing sites) produced a significantly greater RV AHR compared with LV-CS and BV-CS pacing (P < 0.05). RV AHR had a significantly increased standard deviation compared to LV AHR (P < 0.05) with a weak correlation between RV and LV AHR (Spearman rs = -0.06). Compromised biventricular optimization, whereby RV AHR was increased at the expense of a smaller decrease in LV AHR, was achieved in 56% of cases, all with BV-EN pacing. CONCLUSIONS: BV-EN pacing produces significant increases in both LV and RV AHR, above that achievable with conventional epicardial pacing. RV AHR cannot be used as a surrogate for optimizing LV AHR; however, compromised biventricular optimization is possible. The beneficial effect of endocardial LV pacing on RV function may have important clinical benefits beyond conventional CRT.

Haemodynamic evaluation of alternative left ventricular endocardial pacing sites in clinical non-responders to cardiac resynchronisation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Non response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) may be related to the position of the coronary sinus lead. METHODS: We studied the acute haemodynamic response (AHR) from alternative left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing sites in clinical non-responders to CRT. AHR and the interval from QRS onset to LV sensing (Q-LV interval) from four different endocardial pacing sites were evaluated in 24 clinical non-responders. A rise in LVdP/dtmax ≥ 15 % from baseline was considered a positive AHR. We also compared the AHR from endocardial with the corresponding epicardial lead position. RESULTS: The implanted system showed an AHR ≥ 15 % in 5 patients. In 9 of the 19 remaining patients, AHR could be elevated to ≥ 15 % by endocardial LV pacing. The optimal endocardial pacing site was posterolateral. There was no significant difference in AHR between the epicardial and the corresponding endocardial position. The longest Q-LV interval corresponded with the best AHR in 12 out of the 14 patients with a positive AHR, with an average Q-LV/QRS width ratio of 90 %. CONCLUSIONS: Acute haemodynamic testing may indicate an alternative endocardial pacing site with a positive AHR in clinical non-responders. The Q-LV interval is a strongly correlated with the optimal endocardial pacing site. Endocardial pacing opposite epicardial sites does not result in a better AHR.

Impact of pacing site on QRS duration and its relationship to hemodynamic response in cardiac resynchronization therapy for congestive heart failure.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies have demonstrated that left ventricular (LV) pacing site is a critical parameter in optimizing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The present study evaluates the effect of pacing from different LV locations on QRS duration (QRSd) and their relationship to acute hemodynamic response in congestive heart failure patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block referred for CRT device implantation were studied. Eleven predetermined LV pacing sites were systematically assessed in random order: epicardial: coronary sinus (CS); endocardial: basal and mid-cavity (septal, anterior, lateral, and inferior), apex, and the endocardial site facing the CS pacing site. For each patient QRSd and +dP/dtmax during baseline (AAI) and DDD LV pacing at 2 atrioventricular delays were compared. Response to CRT was significantly better in patients with wider baseline QRSd (≥150 milliseconds). Hemodynamic response was inversely correlated to increase of QRSd during LV pacing (short atrioventricular [AV] delay: r = 0.44, P < 0.001; long AV delay: r = 0.59, P < 0.001). Compared to baseline, LV pacing at the site of shortest QRSd significantly improved +dP/dtmax (+18 ± 25%, P < 0.001) but was not superior to other conventional strategy (lateral wall, CS pacing, and echo-guided) and was inferior to a hemodynamically guided strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we have demonstrated that changes of QRSd during LV pacing correlated with acute hemodynamic response and that LV pacing location was a primary determinant of paced QRSd. Although QRSd did not predict the maximum hemodynamic response, our results confirm the link between electrical activation and hemodynamic response of the LV during CRT.

Endocardial left ventricular lead placement from the left subclavian vein approach.

AIMS: In up to 10-15% of cases, the traditional epicardial approach for left ventricular (LV) lead placement is not feasible and surgical implantation is considered the alternative. We present the implantation of a transseptal LV lead through a left subclavian access. METHODS AND RESULTS: Through the left subclavian vein access and using a system which includes a guiding catheter, a puncture screw catheter and a puncture stylet, access to the LV was achieved and the LV stimulation lead was successfully implanted. CONCLUSION: We describe the implantation of a transseptal LV stimulation lead through a left subclavian access.

Left ventricular electrical delay predicts volumetric response to leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing is an emerging cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) technology. Predictors of response to leadless CRT are poorly understood. Implanting the LV endocardial pacing electrode in sites with increased electrical latency (Q-LV) may improve response rates. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between Q-LV and echocardiographic remodeling response to leadless CRT delivered with the WiSE-CRT system. METHODS: A post hoc analysis (n = 122) of the SOLVE-CRT trial examined the relationship between LV pacing site Q-LV with rate of left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction >15% at 6 months. Multivariable regression analysis, adjusting for age, sex, previous CRT nonresponse, cardiomyopathy etiology, QRS morphology, and QRS duration was performed, followed by receiver operating characteristic analysis and analysis of variance by Q-LV quartile. A subgroup analysis of the ischemic cardiomyopathy cohort was undertaken. RESULTS: Complete Q-LV data were available for 122 of 153 patients (80%) in the active arms SOLVE-CRT. Overall, the 6-month LVESV response rate was 46%. Logistic regression identified Q-LV as an independent response predictor with borderline significance (adjusted odds ratio 1.015; P = .05). Analysis by Q-LV quartile demonstrated a significant improvement in response rate in quartile 4 (longest Q-LV 64%) compared to quartile 1 (shortest Q-LV 28%) (P <.01). This association was primarily driven by strong Q-LV-response correlation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, demonstrated by subgroup logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio 1.034; P = .004). CONCLUSION: Increased Q-LV was associated with improved reverse remodeling following leadless CRT. Targeting LV endocardial sites of high Q-LV may deliver additional benefit compared to empirical LV electrode implantation.

Optimizing electrical efficacy of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy and leadless left ventricular septal pacing: Insights on left and right ventricular activation from electrocardiographic imaging.

Background: Leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an emerging heart failure treatment. An implanted electrode delivers lateral or septal endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing (LVP) upon detection of a right ventricular (RV) pacing stimulus from a coimplanted device, thus generating biventricular pacing (BiVP). Electrical efficacy data regarding this therapy, particularly leadless LV septal pacing (LVSP) for potential conduction system capture, are limited. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute performance of leadless CRT using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) and assess the optimal pacing modality (OPM) of LVSP on the basis of RV and LV activation. Methods: Ten WiSE-CRT recipients underwent an ECGi study testing: RV pacing, BiVP, LVP only, and LVP with an optimized atrioventricular delay (LV-OPT). BiV, LV, and RV activation times (shortest time taken to activate 90% of the ventricles [BIVAT-90], shortest time taken to activate 95% of the LV, and shortest time taken to activate 90% of the RV) plus LV and BiV dyssynchrony index (standard deviation of LV activation times and standard deviation of all activation times) were calculated from reconstructed epicardial electrograms. The individual OPM yielding the greatest improvement from baseline was determined. Results: BiVP generated a 23.7% improvement in BiVAT-90 (P = .002). An improvement of 43.3% was observed at the OPM (P = .0001), primarily through reductions in shortest time taken to activate 90% of the RV. At the OPM, BiVAT-90 improved in patients with lateral (43.3%; P = .0001; n = 5) and septal (42.4%; P = .009; n = 5) LV implants. The OPM varied by individual. LVP and LV-OPT were mostly superior in patients with LVSP, and in those with sinus rhythm and left bundle branch block (n = 4). Conclusion: Leadless CRT significantly improves acute ECGi-derived activation and dyssynchrony metrics. Using an individualized OPM improves efficacy in selected patients. Effective LVSP is feasible, with fusion pacing at LV-OPT mitigating the potential deleterious effects on RV activation.