Biventricular versus left ventricular only stimulation: an echocardiographic substudy of the B-LEFT HF trial.

BACKGROUND: The noninferiority of left ventricular pacing alone (LVp) compared with biventricular pacing (BIV) has not been yet definitely documented. In this study, we reviewed all the original echocardiographic measures of the Biventricular versus Left Univentricular Pacing with ICD Back-up in Heart Failure Patients (B-LEFT HF) trial in order to investigate mechanisms underlying LV remodelling with both pacing modalities. METHODS: Patients with New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) III or IV despite optimal medical therapy, LVEF 35% or less, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) more than 55 mm, QRS duration at least 130 ms were randomized to BIV or LVp for 6 months. The primary end point was a composite of at least 1 point decrease in NYHA class and at least 5 mm decrease in left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD). An additional end point was a LVp reverse remodelling defined as at least 10% decrease in LVESD. Mitral regurgitation and all echocardiographic measures were reassessed after 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients were enrolled. Seventy-six patients were in the BIV and 67 were in the LVp group. Left ventricular volumes decreased significantly without difference between groups (P = 0.8447). Similarly, left ventricular diameters decreased significantly in both groups with a significant decrease in LVESD with BIV (P < 0.0001), but not with LVp (P = 0.1383). LVEF improved in both groups without difference (P = 0.8072). Mitral regurgitation did not improve either with BIV, or with LVp. CONCLUSION: The echocardiographic sub-analysis of B-LEFT study showed the substantial equivalence of LVp in favouring left ventricular reverse remodelling as compared with BIV.

Lead complications, device infections, and clinical outcomes in the first year after implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker.

AIMS: The decision to implant a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) system with (defibrillator, CRT-D) or without (pacemaker, CRT-P) cardioverter defibrillator should weigh its benefits and risks. This study examined the (i) incidence of loss of capture and infectious complications and (ii) 1-year clinical outcomes of 402 CRT-D and CRT-P recipients enrolled in the MASCOT study. METHODS AND RESULTS: The indications for CRT-D or CRT-P were posed by the implanting physicians. All (i) losses of atrial and right and left ventricular capture, (ii) system-related infections, and (iii) clinical outcomes, including hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (HF) and deaths from all causes, were recorded up to 1 year of follow-up. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator was implanted in 228 (57%) and CRT-P in 174 (43%) patients. The incidence of loss of capture was greater in CRT-D with 21 patients (9.2%) than in CRT-P with 6 patient (3.5%) recipients (P = 0.01), while the infection rates were 1.3% (3 patients) and 1.2% (2 patients), respectively (ns). In the CRT-D group, 42 of 228 patients (18.4%) died or were hospitalized for HF, compared with 38 of 174 patients (21.8%) in the CRT-P group (ns). In the CRT-D group, 23 patients (10.1%) were hospitalized for worsening HF and 20 (8.8%) patients died, vs. 22 (12.6%) and 19 (10.9%) patients, respectively, in the CRT-P group (ns for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator was implanted in 57% of candidates for CRT. Within 1 year after device implant, the incidence of loss of capture at any lead was nearly three-fold greater among CRT-D than among CRT-P recipients. System-related infections were infrequent and clinical outcomes were similar in both groups.

A randomized double-blind comparison of biventricular versus left ventricular stimulation for cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Biventricular versus Left Univentricular Pacing with ICD Back-up in Heart Failure Patients (B-LEFT HF) trial.

BACKGROUND: Biventricular (BiV) stimulation is the preferred means of delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), although left ventricular (LV)-only stimulation might be as safe and effective. B-LEFT HF is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study aimed to examine whether LV-only is noninferior to BiV pacing regarding clinical and echocardiographic responses. METHODS: B-LEFT HF randomly assigned 176 CRT-D recipients, in New York Heart Association class III or IV, with an LV ejection fraction < or =35% and QRS > or =130 milliseconds, to a BiV (n = 90) versus LV (n = 86) stimulation group. Clinical status and echocardiograms were analyzed at baseline and 6 months after CRT-D implant to test the noninferiority of LV-only compared with BiV stimulation. RESULTS: The proportion of responders was in line with current literature on CRT, with improvement in heart failure composite score in 76.2% and 74.7% of patients in BiV and LV groups, respectively. Comparing LV versus BiV pacing, the small differences in response rates and corresponding 95% CI indicated that LV pacing was noninferior to BiV pacing for a series of response criteria (combination of improvement in New York Heart Association and reverse remodeling, improvement in heart failure composite score, reduction in LV end-systolic volume of at least 10%), both at intention-to-treat and at per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular-only pacing is noninferior to BiV pacing in a 6-month follow-up with regard to clinical and echocardiographic responses. Left ventricular pacing may be considered as a clinical alternative option to BiV pacing.

A prospective randomized evaluation of VV delay optimization in CRT-D recipients: echocardiographic observations from the RHYTHM II ICD study.

BACKGROUND: All current cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices allow the programming of the atrioventricular (AV/PV) delays and the sequential stimulation of the ventricles via the inter ventricular (VV) delay. AIM: This post hoc analysis of the RHYTHM II study was conducted to compare the reverse remodeling associated with VV delay optimization in patients randomly assigned to simultaneous (SIM) biventricular stimulation versus patients assigned to optimized VV delay programming (OPT) (1:3 randomization scheme). METHODS: The analysis included 14 patients assigned to the SIM group and 34 patients to the OPT group who completed the 6-month follow-up period with paired echocardiographic recordings. RESULTS: In both study groups, changes consistent with left ventricular (LV) remodeling were observed between baseline and 6 months, with significant improvements in LV function and decrease in LV dimensions. In the OPT group, there was also a decrease in left atrial diameter and mitral valve closure to opening time. At 6 months, the overall proportion of echocardiographic responders (> or =10% decrease in LV end-systolic volume or > or =5% absolute increase in LV ejection fraction) was similar in both groups. The optimal AV/VV delays, evaluated by maximization of LV outflow tract velocity time integral, changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: Ventriculo-ventricular delay optimization was associated with better immediate hemodynamic function than simultaneous biventricular stimulation, though did not promote additional reverse remodeling at 6 months and did not increase the proportion of echocardiographic responders to CRT. Optimization of both the AV and VV intervals was patient-specific and optimal values changed over time.

Optimization of AV and VV delays in the real-world CRT patient population: an international survey on current clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for patients suffering from advanced heart failure and electrical dyssynchrony. Limited data suggest that patients may benefit from routine optimization of the atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delays; however, there is scarce information available on how and when optimization should be performed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this survey was to characterize the current international standard of care for optimization of the AV and VV delays in CRT devices recipients. METHODS: Centers participating in the Frequent Optimization Survey Using the QuickOpt Method (FREEDOM) study completed surveys probing into their optimization of AV and VV delays procedures. Probes focused on the methods used to optimizing the delays, visits at which optimization of the delays was performed, percentage of patients that underwent optimization, and factors that limited centers from optimizing the CRT systems. RESULTS: Few of the 118 investigators from 16 countries who responded to the survey routinely optimized the delays in all patients. At follow-up visits and during hospitalizations, a trend was observed to optimize the delays more often in nonresponders than in responders to CRT. Standard echocardiography was the most common method of optimization. Time availability and lack of qualified staff were the main factors limiting the optimization of CRT systems. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, AV and VV optimization was not performed in a high proportion of patients. A less time-consuming and easier optimization method might enable a more systematic optimization of the AV and VV delays at routine follow-up visits in all recipients of CRT systems.

Atrial fibrillation in recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy device: 1-year results of the randomized MASCOT trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients suffering from heart failure (HF). Patients in New York Heart Association HF classes III or IV, with systolic dysfunction and a wide QRS, are candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and might benefit from atrial overdrive pacing (AOP). METHODS: The Management of Atrial fibrillation Suppression in AF-HF COmorbidity Therapy (MASCOT) trial enrolled 409 CRT device recipients (79% men), who were randomly assigned to AOP ON (n = 197), versus AOP OFF (n = 197) and followed up for 1 year. Their mean age was 68 +/- 10 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 25 +/- 6%, QRS duration 163 +/- 29 milliseconds. New York Heart Association class III was present in 86% of patients and 19% had a history of paroxysmal AF. The primary study end point was incidence of permanent AF at 1 year. RESULTS: Atrial overdrive pacing increased the percentage of atrial pacing from 30% to 80% (P < .0001), was well tolerated, and did not interfere with (a) delivery of CRT (95% mean ventricular pacing in both groups), (b) response to CRT (70% responders in the control vs 67% in the treatment group), or (c) cardiac function (left ventricular ejection fraction increased from 24.5% +/- 6.2% to 32.7% +/- 10.9% in the control and from 25.8% +/- 6.8% to 33.1% +/- 12.6% in the treatment group). The incidence of permanent AF was 3.3% in both groups. By logistic regression analysis, a history of AF (P < .001) and absence of antiarrhythmic drugs (P = .002) were associated with permanent AF. CONCLUSIONS: In this first trial of a specific AF prevention algorithm in CRT recipients, AOP was safe and did not worsen HF. The prevention algorithm did not lower the 1-year incidence of AF.

A randomized comparison of triple-site versus dual-site ventricular stimulation in patients with congestive heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the effects of triple-site versus dual-site biventricular stimulation in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy. BACKGROUND: Conventional biventricular stimulation with a single right ventricular (RV) and a single left ventricular (LV) lead is associated with persistence of cardiac dyssynchrony in up to 30% of patients. METHODS: This multicenter, single-blind, crossover study enrolled 40 patients (mean age 70 +/- 9 years) with moderate-to-severe heart failure despite optimal drug treatment, a mean LV ejection fraction of 26 +/- 11%, and permanent atrial fibrillation requiring cardiac pacing for slow ventricular rate. A cardiac resynchronization therapy device connected to 1 RV and 2 LV leads, inserted in 2 separate coronary sinus tributaries, was successfully implanted in 34 patients. After 3 months of biventricular stimulation, the patients were randomly assigned to stimulation for 3 months with either 1 RV and 2 LV leads (3-V) or to conventional stimulation with 1 RV and 1 LV lead (2-V), then crossed over for 3 months to the alternate configuration. The primary study end point was quality of ventricular resynchronization (Z ratio). Secondary end points included reverse LV remodeling, quality of life, distance covered during 6-min hall walk, and procedure-related morbidity and mortality. Data from the 6- and 9-month visits were combined to compare end points associated with 2-V versus 3-V. RESULTS: Data eligible for protocol-defined analyses were available in 26 patients. No significant difference in Z ratio, quality of life, and 6-min hall walk was observed between 2-V and 3-V. However, a significantly higher LV ejection fraction (27 +/- 11% vs. 35 +/- 11%; p = 0.001) and smaller LV end-systolic volume (157 +/- 69 cm(3) vs. 134 +/- 75 cm(3); p = 0.02) and diameter (57 +/- 12 mm vs. 54 +/- 10 mm; p = 0.02) were observed with 3-V than with 2-V. There was a single minor procedure-related complication. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy with 1 RV and 2 LV leads was safe and associated with significantly more LV reverse remodeling than conventional biventricular stimulation.

Biventricular vs. left univentricular pacing in heart failure: rationale, design, and endpoints of the B-LEFT HF study.

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) confers sustained therapeutic benefits to patients suffering from congestive heart failure (CHF) due to systolic dysfunction associated with ventricular dyssynchrony. Biventricular (BiV) pacing has, thus far, been the preferred method, as it corrects both electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony. Left ventricular (LV) only pacing, which has conferred similar benefits in pilot studies, may be an alternative treatment method. 'Biventricular vs. left univentricular pacing with ICD back-up in heart failure patients' (B-LEFT HF) is an international, prospective, randomized, parallel-design, double-blind, clinical trial to examine whether LV only pacing is as safe and effective as BiV pacing in patients suffering from CHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The trial will randomly assign 172 patients to either LV only or BiV pacing. The study has prospectively defined efficacy endpoints to be evaluated at 6 months, which are (i) changes in functional capacity and degree of reverse remodelling (primary) and (ii) changes in the heart failure clinical composite response (secondary). CONCLUSION: Because LV only pacing in CRT is likely to be technically less challenging and costly than BiV, a specifically designed study is needed to compare the safety and effectiveness of the two configurations. B-LEFT HF has been designed to settle this critical issue.