LVSP and LBBP Result in Similar or Improved LV Synchrony and Hemodynamics Compared to BVP.

BACKGROUND: The effect of left ventricular septal myocardial pacing (LVSP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) on ventricular synchrony and left ventricular (LV) hemodynamic status is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of LVSP and LBBP vs biventricular pacing (BVP) on ventricular electrical synchrony and hemodynamic status in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. METHODS: In cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates with LV conduction disease, ventricular synchrony was assessed by measuring QRS duration (QRSd) and using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography. LV electrical dyssynchrony was assessed as the difference between the first activation in leads V1 to V8 to the last from leads V4 to V8. LV hemodynamic status was estimated using invasive systolic blood pressure measurement during multiple transitions between LBBP, LVSP, and BVP. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients with a mean LV ejection fraction of 29% and a mean QRSd of 168 ± 24 ms were included. Thirteen had ischemic cardiomyopathy. QRSd during BVP, LVSP, and LBBP was the same, but LBBP provided shorter LV electrical dyssynchrony than BVP (-10 ms; 95% CI: -16 to -4 ms; P = 0.001); the difference between LVSP and BVP was not significant (-5 ms; 95% CI: -12 to 1 ms; P = 0.10). LBBP was associated with higher systolic blood pressure than BVP (4%; 95% CI: 2% to 5%; P < 0.001), whereas LVSP was not (1%; 95% CI: 0% to 2%; P = 0.10). Hemodynamic differences during LBBP and LVSP vs BVP were more pronounced in nonischemic than ischemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography allowed the documentation of differences in LV synchrony between LBBP, LVSP, and BVP, which were not observed by measuring QRSd. LVSP provided the same LV synchrony and hemodynamic status as BVP, while LBBP was better than BVP in both.

Acute Hemodynamic Effect of a Novel Dual-Vein, Multisite Biventricular Pacing Configuration.

BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing (BVP) from multiple left ventricular (LV) sites could enhance the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by engaging a greater myocardial mass. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the acute hemodynamic effect of various multisite pacing (MSP) configurations against conventional BVP. METHODS: Twenty patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block (mean age: 59 ± 14 years; LV ejection fraction: 27% ± 6%; native QRS: 171 ± 16 milliseconds) were investigated during a routine CRT implant procedure. In addition to conventional right atrial and right ventricular leads, 2 quadripolar leads were placed in the distant coronary venous branches. LV hemodynamics was evaluated by using a micromanometer-tipped catheter during atrioventricular BVP with 4 LV lead configurations: single-lead conventional BVP; single-lead multipoint pacing; triventricular pacing from distal dipoles of 2 LV leads; and maximum MSP (MSP-Max) from 4 dipoles of 2 LV leads. RESULTS: Compared with right atrial pacing, any BVP configuration produced a significant increase in the maximal LV diastolic pressure rise (LVdP/dTMax) (a median relative increase of 28% [IQR: 8%-45%], 25% [IQR: 18%-46%], 36% [IQR: 18%-54%], and 38% [IQR: 28%-58%], respectively; all, P < 0.001). MSP-Max but no other multisite BVP generated a significant increase of the maximal LVdP/dTMax than conventional BVP (P = 0.041). Increased LVdP/dTMax during MSP-Max was associated with greater LV diameter and lower LV ejection fraction, independently of the QRS width. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows the hemodynamic advantage of a novel dual-vein MSP-Max configuration that could be useful for CRT in patients with advanced LV remodeling.

Small left atrium and mild mitral regurgitation predict super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can result in profound reverse remodelling. The goal of this study was to identify factors predictive of such beneficial response. METHODS AND RESULTS: Super-response to CRT was defined as normalization or near normalization of left ventricular systolic function without recognized reversible causes of heart failure. In a retrospective study, we compared baseline demographic, electrocardiogram, and echocardiographic characteristics of super-responders (n = 21) with a population of unselected consecutive cardiac CRT patients (Control 1, n = 330) and another sex-, age-, and aetiology-matched control group (Control 2, n = 43). Compared with Control 1, super-responders had significantly smaller left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (65.4 ± 6.4 vs. 73.4 ± 9.3 mm, P = 0.0001), higher ejection fraction (0.25 ± 0.05 vs. 0.22 ± 0.04, P = 0.004), smaller degree of mitral regurgitation (MR; mean value 1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 2.6 ± 0.8, P = <0.0001), and smaller left atrium (LA; 42.8 ± 4.6 vs. 50.0 ± 6.5 mm, P < 0.0001). Septal flash and inter-ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony were both more frequent among super-responders than in Control 2 subjects (93.8 vs. 69.8%; P = 0.01, and 93.8 vs. 62.8%; P = 0.01, respectively). In a multivariate analysis, smaller LA diameter and milder MR remained independent predictors of super-response. CONCLUSION: Super-response to cardiac CRT was associated with less advanced left-sided structural involvement as described by echocardiography. In particular, smaller LA and milder MR were independent predictors of pronounced reverse remodelling.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: A prospective, single-centre randomized study (CMR-CRT).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves symptoms of heart failure (HF), morbidity and mortality in selected population. The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-guided left ventricular (LV) lead placement on clinical outcomes and LV reverse remodelling in CRT recipients. METHODS: Patients with CRT indication were randomized for CMR-guided (CMR group) or electrophysiologically guided (EP group) LV lead placement between 2011 and 2014. The target site in the CMR group was defined as the most delayed, scar-free, in the EP group as the site with the longest interval between the QRS onset and local electrogram. The primary endpoint was a combination of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Secondary endpoints were New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class improvement ≥1, LV endsystolic diameter reduction >10%, B-type natriuretic peptide reduction by ≥30%. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients (47 in the CMR and 52 in the EP group) were enrolled. During a median follow-up of 47 months, primary composite endpoint occurred in 5 patients in the CMR group and 14 patients in the EP group (HR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.16-1.32). Patients with left bundle branch block and NYHA Class >2 had better clinical outcome in the CMR group (HR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01-0.75). CONCLUSIONS: The use of CMR did not result in significant reduction of combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization in the total study population. Significant clinical benefit from CMR-guided procedure was observed in a subgroup of optimum CRT candidates with advanced HF.