Targeted left ventricular lead positioning to the site of latest activation in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Several studies have evaluated the use of electrically- or imaging-guided left ventricular (LV) lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients. We aimed to assess evidence for a guided strategy that targets LV lead position to the site of latest LV activation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until March 2023 that evaluated electrically- or imaging-guided LV lead positioning on clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization, and secondary endpoints were quality of life, 6-min walk test (6MWT), QRS duration, LV end-systolic volume, and LV ejection fraction. We included eight RCTs that comprised 1323 patients. Six RCTs compared guided strategy (n = 638) to routine (n = 468), and two RCTs compared different guiding strategies head-to-head: electrically- (n = 111) vs. imaging-guided (n = 106). Compared to routine, a guided strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary endpoint after 12-24 (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52-1.33) months. A guided strategy was associated with slight improvement in 6MWT distance after 6 months of follow-up of absolute 18 (95% CI 6-30) m between groups, but not in remaining secondary endpoints. None of the secondary endpoints differed between the guided strategies. CONCLUSION: In this study, a CRT implantation strategy that targets the latest LV activation did not improve survival or reduce heart failure hospitalizations.

Reproducibility and repeatability of identifying the latest electrical activation during mapping of coronary sinus branches in CRT recipients.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown an association between the outcome in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and longer interventricular delay at the site of the left ventricular (LV) lead. Targeted LV lead placement at the latest electrically activated segment increases LV function further as compared with standard treatment. We aimed to determine reproducibility and repeatability of identifying the latest electrically activated segment during mapping of all available coronary sinus (CS) branches in patients receiving CRT. METHODS: We included 35 patients who underwent CRT implantation with protocolled mapping guided LV lead implantation aiming for the site of the latest electrical activation. Three different doctors experienced in electrophysiology and implantation of CRT devices independently measured time interval from the local bipolar right ventricular (RV) electrogram (EGM) to the local unipolar LV EGM at all mapped sites (RV-LV). The segment with the latest electrical activation was defined as the target segment (TS) and the CS tributary containing TS was defined as the target vein (TV). Weighted κ statistics with 95% confidence intervals were computed to assess intra- and interobserver agreement for TS and TV. RESULTS: We mapped 258 segments within 131 veins. Weighted κ values for repeatability were 0.85 (0.81-0.89) for TS and 0.92 (0.89-0.93) for TV, and weighted κ values of interobserver agreement ranged from 0.70 (0.61-0.73) to 0.80 (0.76-0.83) for TS and 0.73 (0.64-0.78) to 0.86 (0.83-0.89) for TV among all three observers. CONCLUSION: The reproducibility and repeatability of identifying the latest electrically activated segment during mapping of all available CS branches in patients receiving CRT range from good to very good.

Electrically vs. imaging-guided left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To test in a double-blinded, randomized trial whether the combination of electrically guided left ventricular (LV) lead placement and post-implant interventricular pacing delay (VVd) optimization results in superior increase in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stratified according to presence of ischaemic heart disease, 122 patients were randomized 1:1 to LV lead placement targeted towards the latest electrically activated segment identified by systematic mapping of the coronary sinus tributaries during CRT implantation combined with post-implant VVd optimization (intervention group) or imaging-guided LV lead implantation by cardiac computed tomography venography, 82Rubidium myocardial perfusion imaging and speckle tracking echocardiography targeting the LV lead towards the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardial segment (control group). Follow-up was 6 months. Primary endpoint was absolute increase in LVEF. Additional outcome measures were changes in New York Heart Association class, 6-minute walk test, and quality of life, LV reverse remodelling, and device related complications. Analysis was intention-to-treat. A larger increase in LVEF was observed in the intervention group (11 ± 10 vs. 7 ± 11%; 95% confidence interval 0.4-7.9%, P = 0.03); when adjusting for pre-specified baseline covariates this difference did not maintain statistical significance (P = 0.09). Clinical response, LV reverse remodelling, and complication rates did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Electrically guided CRT implantation appeared non-inferior to an imaging-guided strategy considering the outcomes of change in LVEF, LV reverse remodelling and clinical response. Larger long-term studies are warranted to investigate the effect of an electrically guided CRT strategy.

Reproducibility of measuring QRS duration and implications for optimization of interventricular pacing delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: QRS narrowing after CRT is a predictor of patient outcome. Further narrowing can be obtained by interventricular pacing delay (VVd) optimization, raising interest to inter and intraobserver variation in manual measurements of QRS duration. METHODS: (a) Variation in intrinsic rhythm QRS duration in CRT patients with LBBB: In 40 intrinsic 12-lead ECGs, six observers measured QRS duration defined as widest QRS in any lead. In 20 of these ECGs, two observers repeated the measurements. (b) Variation in paced QRS duration at different VVd settings and agreement in selecting the narrowest QRS: In 20 CRT patients, five paced ECGs were recorded at different VVds. The most frequently selected VVd(s) estimated to cause the narrowest QRS in each patient defined the optimal VVd. Two observers repeated the measurements and VVd selections. RESULTS: Absolute interobserver difference in measured QRS duration in intrinsic rhythm ECGs was mean 2 ms, range (-40; 40 ms), mean limits of agreement (LoA): -21; 25 ms. Absolute interobserver difference in measured QRS duration in paced ECGs was mean 3 ms, range (-50; 60 ms), mean LoA: -20; 27 ms. There was no difference in LoA between intrinsic and paced QRS duration (lower limit p = 0.68; upper limit p = 0.44). The optimal VVd was included in 17/20 (85%) of the VVd selections by six observers. Interobserver variation was comparable with the intraobserver variation. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variation and intraobserver variation in manually measured paced and intrinsic rhythm QRS duration are clinically acceptable and comparable in a cohort of CRT patients. Inter and intraobserver reproducibility for selecting the optimal VVd is good and warrants manual VVd optimization for QRS narrowing in CRT.

Longer inter-lead electrical delay is associated with response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with presumed optimal left ventricular lead position.

Aims: In a randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), a presumed optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position close to the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardium was achieved in 98% of patients by standard implantation. We evaluated whether inter-lead electrical delay (IED) was associated with response to CRT in these patients. Methods and results: We prospectively included 160 consecutive patients undergoing CRT. Pre-implant speckle-tracking echocardiography radial strain and 99mTc myocardial perfusion imaging determined the latest mechanically activated non-scarred myocardial segment. We measured procedural IED as the time interval between sensed signals in right ventricular and LV lead electrograms. All patients had LV pacing site concordant or adjacent to the latest mechanically activated non-scarred segment verified by cardiac computed tomography. Response to CRT was defined as ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months follow-up. Selecting a practical IED cut-off value of 100 ms, more patients with long IED than patients with short IED responded to CRT (87 vs. 68%; P = 0.004). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, IED ≥100 ms remained associated with CRT response after adjusting for baseline characteristics, including QRS duration and scar burden [odds ratio 3.19 (1.24-8.17); P = 0.01]. Categorizing IED by tertiles, CRT response improved with longer IED (P = 0.03). Comparable response rates were observed in patients with a concordant and adjacent LV lead position. Conclusion: A longer IED was associated with more pronounced LV reverse remodelling response in CRT recipients with a presumed optimal LV lead position concordant or adjacent to the latest mechanically activated non-scarred segment.

Syncope and Total Atrioventricular Block Associated With Alcohol Consumption in a Healthy Young Man.

Association between alcohol intake and atrioventricular block is rare. This case describes a previously healthy 27-year-old man experiencing syncopes preceded by moderate alcohol intake. An implantable loop recorder demonstrated episodes of total atrioventricular block coinciding with an additional syncope after alcohol intake, resulting in pacemaker implantation. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Contractile asymmetry and survival in patients with left bundle branch abnormality treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Aims: Currently, electrical rather than mechanical parameters of delayed left ventricular (LV) activation are used for patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, despite adhering to current guideline-based criteria, about one-third of heart failure (HF) patients fail to derive benefit from CRT. This study sought to investigate the prognostic survival significance of a recently introduced index of contractile asymmetry (ICA) based on the deformation of entire opposing LV walls in the context of selecting patients with HF and left bundle branch abnormality (LBBB) for CRT. Methods and results: We analysed 367 patients with HF and LBBB undergoing CRT (31.6% females, 69 ± 9 years, ischaemic aetiology in 50.7%, LV ejection fraction 27 ± 6%). ICA was calculated using LV strain rate values from curved anatomical M-mode plots of apical 2D echocardiography images. The predictive value of ICA was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models. During a median follow-up time of 5.54 years, death or cardiac transplantation occurred in 105 (28.6%) cases. Higher baseline ICA values in all apical views, particularly in the two-chamber view (ICA-2ch), were associated with increased event-free survival, and the unadjusted hazard ratio was 0.28 (95% confidence interval 0.18-0.46). Higher ICA-2ch (>0.319 s-1) consistently predicted survival across clinical subgroups and remained significant after covariate adjustment, while the event rate sharply increased in low ICA-2ch cases. Additionally, including ICA-2ch improved the predictive value of the multivariate risk model containing the typical LBBB pattern. Conclusion: Pre-implant ICA suggests a quantitative prognostic threshold for both long-term survival and adverse outcomes following CRT implantation.

Cardiac computed tomography-verified right ventricular lead position and outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between different right ventricular (RV) lead positions as assessed by cardiac computed tomography (CT) and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: We reviewed patient records of all 278 patients included in two randomized controlled trials (ImagingCRT and ElectroCRT) for occurrence of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or all-cause death (primary endpoint) during long-term follow-up. Outcomes were compared between RV lead positions using adjusted Cox regression analysis. Six months after CRT implantation, we estimated left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling by measuring LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes by echocardiography. Changes from baseline to 6 months follow-up were compared between RV lead positions. Device-related complications were recorded at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: During median (interquartile range) follow-up of 4.7 (2.9-7.1) years, the risk of meeting the primary endpoint was similar for patients with non-apical vs. apical RV lead position (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.12, p = 0.17) and free wall vs. septal RV lead position (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72-1.47, p = 0.86). Changes in LV ejection fraction and dimensions were similar with the different RV lead positions. We observed no differences in device-related complications relative to the RV lead position. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving CRT, the risk of HF hospitalization or all-cause death during long-term follow-up, and LV remodeling and incidence of device-related complications after 6 months are not associated with different anatomical RV lead position as assessed by cardiac CT.

Electrically guided versus imaging-guided implant of the left ventricular lead in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a study protocol for a double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial (ElectroCRT).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment in patients with heart failure and prolonged QRS duration where a biventricular pacemaker is implanted to achieve faster activation and more synchronous contraction of the left ventricle (LV). Despite the convincing effect of CRT, 30-40% of patients do not respond. Among the most important correctable causes of non-response to CRT is non-optimal LV lead position. METHODS: We will enroll 122 patients in this patient-blinded and assessor-blinded, randomized, clinical trial aiming to investigate if implanting the LV lead guided by electrical mapping towards the latest LV activation as compared with imaging-guided implantation, causes an excess increase in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). The patients are randomly assigned to either the intervention group: preceded by cardiac computed tomography of the cardiac venous anatomy, the LV lead is placed according to the latest LV activation in the coronary sinus (CS) branches identified by systematic electrical mapping of the CS at implantation and post-implant optimization of the interventricular pacing delay; or patients are assigned to the control group: placement of the LV lead guided by cardiac imaging. The LV lead is targeted towards the latest mechanical LV activation as identified by echocardiography and outside myocardial scar as identified by myocardial perfusion (MP) imaging. The primary endpoint is change in LVEF at 6-month follow up (6MFU) as compared with baseline measured by two-dimensional echocardiography. Secondary endpoints include relative percentage reduction in LV end-systolic volume, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and a clinical combined endpoint of response to CRT at 6MFU defined as the patient being alive, not hospitalized for heart failure, and experiencing improvement in NYHA functional class or/and > 10% increase in 6-minute walk test. DISCUSSION: We assume an absolute increase in LVEF of 12% in the intervention group versus 8% in the control group. If an excess increase in LVEF can be achieved by LV lead implantation guided by electrical mapping, this study supports the conduct of larger trials investigating the impact of this strategy for LV-lead implantation on clinical outcomes in patients treated with CRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02346097 . Registered on 12 January 2015. Patients were enrolled between 16 February 2015 and 13 December 2017.