Rationale and design for ENHANCE CRT: QLV implant strategy for non-left bundle branch block patients

Preimplantation interlead ECG heterogeneity is superior to QRS complex duration in predicting mechanical super-response in patients with non-left bundle branch block receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Reliable quantitative preimplantation predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are needed.

OBJECTIVE

We tested the utility of preimplantation R-wave and T-wave heterogeneity (RWH and TWH, respectively) compared to standard QRS complex duration in identifying mechanical super-responders to CRT and mortality risk.

METHODS

We analyzed resting 12-lead electrocardiographic recordings from all 155 patients who received CRT devices between 2006 and 2018 at our institution and met class I and IIA American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society guidelines with echocardiograms before and after implantation. Super-responders (n=35, 23%) had ≥20% increase in left ventricular ejection fraction and/or ≥20% decrease in left ventricular end-systolic diameter and were compared with non-super-responders (n=120, 77%), who did not meet these criteria. RWH and TWH were measured using second central moment analysis.

RESULTS

Among patients with non-left bundle branch block (LBBB), preimplantation RWH was significantly lower in super-responders than in non-super-responders in 3 of 4 lead sets (P=.001 to P=.038) and TWH in 2 lead sets (both, P=.05), with the corresponding areas under the curve (RWH: 0.810-0.891, P<.001; TWH: 0.759-0.810, P≤.005). No differences were observed in the LBBB group. Preimplantation QRS complex duration also did not differ between super-responders and non-super-responders among patients with (P=.856) or without (P=.724) LBBB; the areas under the curve were nonsignificant (both, P=.69). RWH_V1-3LILII ≥ 420 μV predicted 3-year all-cause mortality in the entire cohort (P=.037), with a hazard ratio of 7.440 (95% confidence interval 1.015-54.527; P=.048); QRS complex duration ≥ 150 ms did not predict mortality (P=.27).

CONCLUSION

Preimplantation interlead electrocardiographic heterogeneity but not QRS complex duration predicts mechanical super-response to CRT in patients with non-LBBB.

Indications of Cardiac Resynchronization in Non-Left Bundle Branch Block: Clinical Review of Available Evidence

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefits have been firmly established in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), who remain in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes II and III, despite optimal medical therapy, and have a wide QRS complex. An important and consistent finding in published systematic reviews and in subgroup analyses is that the benefits of CRT are maximum for patients with a broader QRS durations, typically described as QRS duration > 150 ms, and for patients with a typical left bundle branch block (LBBB) QRS morphology. It remains uncertain whether patients with non-LBBB QRS complex morphology clearly benefit from CRT or only modestly respond.

CRT Optimization: What Is New? What Is Necessary?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has proven to improve quality of life, reduce heart failure hospitalization, and prolong life in selected heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction, on optimal medical therapy and with electrical dyssynchrony. To ensure maximal benefit for CRT patients, optimization of care should be implemented. This begins with appropriate referring as well as selecting patients, knowing that the presence of left bundle branch block and QRS ≥ 150 ms is associated with the greatest reverse remodeling. The LV lead, preferably quadripolar, is best targeted in a postero-lateral position. After implantation, optimal device programming should aim for maximal biventricular pacing and in selected cases further electrical delay optimization might be of use. Even as important, is the implementation of thorough multidisciplinary heart failure care with medication uptitration, remote monitoring, rehabilitation, and patient education. The role of newer pacing strategies as endocardial or His-bundle pacing remains the subject of ongoing investigation.

The Past, Present and Future of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has revolutionized the care of the patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and electrical dyssynchrony. The current guidelines for patient selection include measurement of left ventricular systolic function, QRS duration and morphology, and functional classification. Despite consistent and increasing evidence supporting CRT use in appropriate patients, CRT has been underutilized. Notwithstanding the heterogeneous definitions of non-response, more than one-third of patients demonstrate a lack of echocardiographic reverse remodeling or poor clinical outcome following CRT. Since the causes of this non-response are multifactorial, it will require multidisciplinary efforts to overcome including optimal patient selection, procedural strategies, as well as optimizing post-implant care in patients undergoing CRT. The innovations of novel pacing approaches combined with advanced imaging technologies may eventually offer a personalized CRT system uniquely tailored to each patient's dyssynchrony signature.

Rationale and design for ENHANCE CRT: QLV implant strategy for non-left bundle branch block patients

AIMS

Historically, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response in non-left bundle branch block (non-LBBB) patients has been suboptimal in comparison with that observed in left bundle branch block patients. The electrical activation pattern of the left ventricle (LV) is different between these two QRS morphologies. Small non-randomized studies have suggested that targeting the LV wall with greatest electrical delay may be superior to conventional anatomical pacing from the lateral wall in non-LBBB patients. This article outlines the design and rationale of a prospective, randomized, pilot study, which assesses the effect of a non-traditional LV lead implant strategy on the clinical composite score after 12 months of follow-up in a non-LBBB patient population.

METHODS

All patients will receive an Abbott quadripolar CRT-D system (Quartet 1458Q LV lead with Unify Quadra™, Quadra Assura™ CRT-D or any market-approved CRT-D device with quadripolar pacing capabilities). Patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio between a QLV-based implant strategy vs. standard of care. Up to 250 patients will be enrolled in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

If the primary endpoint is achieved, this study will provide important information about reducing the non-responder rate in non-LBBB patients and provide further evidence for the QLV-based implant strategy.