Cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing via quadripolar lead versus traditional biventricular pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on hemodynamic, clinical, and prognostic parameters

Factors that Determined a Positive Response to Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Cardiac Dyssynchrony. One Center Experience

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) associated with cardiac dyssynchrony and to identify the factors that influence the CRT efficacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 155 patients after implantation of CRT devices. The CRT devices with a built-in cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D) and without it (CRT-P) were implanted in 139 (89.7%) and 16 (10.3%) patients, respectively. The follow-up period was 52.37±35.94 months. Based on the study results, two groups of patients were formed depending on the presence of a clinical response to CRT, responders and non-responders. The factors that influenced the clinical response to CRT were studied. The effect of the baseline state of patients on the effect of therapy was assessed. The need for CRT optimization and a possibility of using electrocardiographic criteria for that purpose were studied. Modern devices and leads for CRT, their functional capabilities and their influence on the CRT efficacy were characterized. Statistical analysis was performed with an IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0 (Chicago, USA) package.

RESULTS

CRT implantation with the left ventricular lead placement according to the traditional technique, through the coronary sinus, was successful in 130 (87.9%) patients. Difficulties with the left ventricular lead placement were noted in 13 (8.3%) patients when other techniques were used. After 6 months, a hemodynamic and clinical response was observed in 112 (72.2%) patients, and no positive response in 43 (27.8%). The increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in the responder group was more than 21.8±3.7%, which was associated with an improvement of the 6-minute walk test results. Th clinical response was significantly influenced by the possibility of stimulation from the basal parts of the heart; the use of more modern devices for CRT and quadripolar left ventricular leads; timely CRT optimization; and persistent dyssynchrony in non-responders. During the follow-up period, 34 (21.9%) patients died. The death rate in the non-responder group was significantly higher than in the responder group, 18 (41.3%) vs. 16 (14.3%), p=0.001. The main cause of death in the group of non-responders was CHF. Heart transplantation was performed in 3 (1.9%) patients.

CONCLUSION

CRT increases the life span and improves the quality of life in patients with CHF and cardiac dyssynchrony. There was a group of patients with no benefit from CRT in this study. Modern devices allow increasing the number of patients who benefit from CRT. Periodic optimization of CRT is necessary. When optimizing CRT, it is possible to use electrocardiographic criteria of effectiveness: duration of the QRS complex and changes in the position of the electrical axis of the heart.

Current Role of Electrocardiographic Imaging in Patient Selection for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a recognized therapy for heart failure with altered ejection fraction and abnormal left ventricular activation time. Since the introduction of the therapy, a 30% rate of non-responders is observed and unchanged. The 12-lead ECG remains the only recommended tool for patient selection to CRT. The 12-lead ECG is, however, limited in its inability to provide a precise pattern of regional electrical activity. Electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) provides a non-invasive detailed mapping of cardiac activation and therefore appears as a promising tool for CRT candidates. The non-invasive ventricular activation maps acquired by ECGi have been primarily explored for the diagnosis and guidance of therapy in patients with atrial or ventricular tachyarrhythmia. However, the accuracy of the system in this field is lacking and needs further improvement before considering a clinical application. On the other hand, its use for patient selection for CRT is encouraging. In this review, we introduce the technical considerations and we describe how ECGi can precisely characterize ventricular activation, especially in patients with left bundle branch block, thus identifying the electrical substrate responsive to CRT.

Clinical outcomes of automatic algorithms in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Algorithms to automatically adjust atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices are common, but their clinical efficacy is unknown.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate automatic CRT algorithms in patients with heart failure for the reduction of mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and clinical improvement.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with CRT using automatic algorithms that change AV and VV intervals dynamically without manual input, on a beat-to-beat basis. We performed a subgroup analysis including intracardiac electrogram-based (EGM) algorithms and contractility-based algorithms.

Results

Nine RCTs with 8531 participants were included, of whom 4275 (50.1%) were randomized to automatic algorithm. Seven of the 9 trials used EGM-based algorithms, and 2 used contractility sensors. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (10.3% vs 11.3%; odds ratio [OR] 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.03; P = .13; I2 = 0%) or heart failure hospitalizations (15.0% vs 16.1%; OR 0.924; 95% CI 0.81-1.04; P = .194; I2 = 0%) between the automatic algorithm group and the control group. Study-defined clinical improvement was also not significantly different between groups (66.6% vs 63.3%; risk ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.06; P = .82; I2 = 50%). In the contractility-based subgroup, there was a trend toward greater clinical improvement with the use of the automatic algorithm (75% vs 68.3%; OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.97-2.18; P = .07; I2 = 40%), which did not reach statistical significance. The overall risk of bias was low.

Conclusion

Automatic algorithms that change AV or VV intervals did not improve mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, or cardiovascular symptoms in patients with heart failure and CRT.