Optimizing lead placement for pacing in dyssynchronous heart failure: The patient in the lead

Cost-effectiveness analysis of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

The Wireless Stimulation Endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) system is a novel technology used to treat patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (HF) by providing leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Observational studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy profile, however, the treatment cost-effectiveness has not previously been examined.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of the WiSE-CRT System was performed using a cohort-based economic model adopting a "proportion in state" structure. In addition to the primary analysis, scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to test for uncertainty in input parameters. Outcomes were quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) differences.

RESULTS

The primary analysis demonstrated that treatment with the WiSE-CRT system is likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon at a QALY reimbursement threshold of £20 000, with a net monetary benefit (NMB) of £3781 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness declines at time horizons shorter than 10 years. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that average system battery life had the largest impact on potential cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Within the model limitations, these findings support the use of WiSE-CRT in indicated patients from an economic standpoint. However, improving battery technology should be prioritized to maximize cost-effectiveness in times when health services are under significant financial pressures.

Prognostic implications of invasive hemodynamics during cardiac resynchronization therapy: Stroke work outperforms dP/dtmax

Background

Invasive measurements of left ventricular (LV) hemodynamic performance can evaluate acute response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Objective

The study sought to determine which metric, maximum rate of LV pressure rise (LV dP/dtmax) or LV stroke work (LVSW), is more strongly associated with long-term prognosis.

Methods

CRT patients were prospectively included from 3 academic centers. Invasive pressure-volume loop measurements during implantation were performed, and LV dP/dtmax and LVSW were determined at baseline and during biventricular pacing (BVP) as well as their relative increase (%Δ). Hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary outcome of 8-year all-cause mortality were derived using Cox proportional hazards. The secondary endpoint was echocardiographic response, defined as 6-month LV end-systolic volume reduction ≥15%.

Results

Paired data from 82 patients were analyzed (67% male; age 66 ± 9 years; QRS duration 158 ± 22 ms, median survival time 72 months). Survival was better when LVSW during BVP was ≥4400 mL∙mm Hg (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.58, P < .003) or when ΔLVSW% was ≥10% (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.65, P = .006). In multivariate analysis, following direct comparison of continuous measures of acute ΔLV dP/dtmax% and ΔLVSW%, only ΔLVSW% remained associated with the primary endpoint (HR 0.982 per percentage point, P = .028). In contrast to LV dP/dtmax (all P > .05), significant associations with echocardiographic response were found for stroke work during BVP (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve 0.745, P = .001) and ΔLVSW% (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve 0.803, P < .001).

Conclusion

Stroke work, but not LV dP/dtmax, is consistently associated with long-term prognosis and response after CRT. Our results therefore favor the use of stroke work as the hemodynamic parameter to predict long-term outcome after CRT.

Progress in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy and Optimisation

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) has become the cornerstone of heart failure (HF) treatment. Despite the obvious benefit from this therapy, an estimated 30% of CRT patients do not respond ("non-responders"). The cause of "non-response" is multi-factorial and includes suboptimal device settings. To optimise CRT settings, echocardiography has been considered the gold standard but has limitations: it is user dependent and consumes time and resources. CRT proprietary algorithms have been developed to perform device optimisation efficiently and with limited resources. In this review, we discuss CRT optimisation including the various adopted proprietary algorithms and conduction system pacing.

Combination of personalized computational modeling and machine learning for optimization of left ventricular pacing site in cardiac resynchronization therapy

Introduction: The 30-50% non-response rate to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) calls for improved patient selection and optimized pacing lead placement. The study aimed to develop a novel technique using patient-specific cardiac models and machine learning (ML) to predict an optimal left ventricular (LV) pacing site (ML-PS) that maximizes the likelihood of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement in a given CRT candidate. To validate the approach, we evaluated whether the distance D_PS between the clinical LV pacing site (ref-PS) and ML-PS is associated with improved response rate and magnitude. Materials and methods: We reviewed retrospective data for 57 CRT recipients. A positive response was defined as a more than 10% LVEF improvement. Personalized models of ventricular activation and ECG were created from MRI and CT images. The characteristics of ventricular activation during intrinsic rhythm and biventricular (BiV) pacing with ref-PS were derived from the models and used in combination with clinical data to train supervised ML classifiers. The best logistic regression model classified CRT responders with a high accuracy of 0.77 (ROC AUC = 0.84). The LR classifier, model simulations and Bayesian optimization with Gaussian process regression were combined to identify an optimal ML-PS that maximizes the ML-score of CRT response over the LV surface in each patient. Results: The optimal ML-PS improved the ML-score by 17 ± 14% over the ref-PS. Twenty percent of the non-responders were reclassified as positive at ML-PS. Selection of positive patients with a max ML-score >0.5 demonstrated an improved clinical response rate. The distance D_PS was shorter in the responders. The max ML-score and D_PS were found to be strong predictors of CRT response (ROC AUC = 0.85). In the group with max ML-score > 0.5 and D_PS< 30 mm, the response rate was 83% compared to 14% in the rest of the cohort. LVEF improvement in this group was higher than in the other patients (16 ± 8% vs. 7 ± 8%). Conclusion: A new technique combining clinical data, personalized heart modelling and supervised ML demonstrates the potential for use in clinical practice to assist in optimizing patient selection and predicting optimal LV pacing lead position in HF candidates for CRT.

The role of conduction system pacing in patients with atrial fibrillation

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising novel delivery method for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT), providing an alternative to conventional biventricular epicardial (BiV) pacing in indicated patients. Despite increasing popularity and widespread uptake, CSP has rarely been specifically examined in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), a cohort which forms a significant proportion of the heart failure (HF) population. In this review, we first examine the mechanistic evidence for the importance of sinus rhythm (SR) in CSP by allowing adjustment of atrioventricular delays (AVD) to achieve the optimal electrical response, and thus, whether the efficacy of CSP may be significantly attenuated compared to conventional BiV pacing in the presence of AF. We next evaluate the largest clinical body of evidence in this field, related to patients receiving CSP following atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) for AF. Finally, we discuss how future research may be designed to address the vital question of how effective CSP in AF patients is, and the potential hurdles we may face in delivering such studies.

Pacing interventions in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) represent a high-risk, and difficult to treat population of heart failure patients. Studies have shown that these patients have a lower quality of life and reduced life expectancy compared to those who respond to CRT. Whilst the first-line treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure is "conventional" biventricular epicardial CRT, a range of novel pacing interventions have emerged as potential alternatives. This has raised the question whether these new treatments may be useful as a second-line pacing intervention for treating non-responders, or indeed, whether some patients may benefit from these as a first-line option. In this review, we will examine the current evidence for four pacing interventions in the context of treatment of conventional CRT non-responders: CRT optimization; multisite left ventricular pacing; left ventricular endocardial pacing and conduction system pacing.

Recruitment of the cardiac conduction system for optimal resynchronization therapy in failing heart

Heart failure (HF) is a leading health burden around the world. Although pharmacological development has dramatically advanced medication therapy in the field, hemodynamic disorders or mechanical desynchrony deteriorated by intra or interventricular conduction abnormalities remains a critical target beyond the scope of pharmacotherapy. In the past 2 decades, nonpharmacologic treatment for heart failure, such as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP), has been playing an important role in improving the prognosis of heart failure. However, the response rate of BVP-CRT is variable, leaving one-third of patients not benefiting from the therapy as expected. Considering the non-physiological activation pattern of BVP-CRT, more efforts have been made to optimize resynchronization. The most extensively investigated approach is by stimulating the native conduction system, e.g., His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). These emerging CRT approaches provide an alternative to traditional BVP-CRT, with multiple proof-of-concept studies indicating the safety and efficacy of its utilization in dyssynchronous heart failure. In this review, we summarize the mechanisms of dyssynchronous HF mediated by conduction disturbance, the rationale and acute effect of CSP for CRT, the recent advancement in clinical research, and possible future directions of CSP.

Left bundle branch area pacing: A promising modality for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recognized as the first-line management for patients with heart failure (HF) and conduction disorders. As a conventional mode for delivering CRT, biventricular pacing (BVP) improves cardiac function and reduces HF hospitalizations and mortality, but there are still limitations given the high incidence of a lack of response rates. Alternative pacing methods are needed either for primary or rescue therapy. In recent years, conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological pacing modality for simultaneous stimulation of the ventricles, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). CSP activates the His-Purkinje system, allowing normal ventricular stimulation. However, HBP is technically challenging with a relatively low success rate, high pacing threshold, and failure to correct distal conduction abnormalities. Therefore, LBBP stands out as a novel ideal physiological pacing modality for CRT. Several non-randomized studies compared the feasibility and safety of LBBP with BVP and concluded that LBBP is superior to BVP for delivering CRT with a narrower QRS and greater improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Concurrently, some studies showed lower and stable pacing thresholds and greater improvement of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, as well as better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. LBBP ensures better ventricular electromechanical resynchronization than BVP. In this review, we discuss current knowledge of LBBP, compare LBBP with BVP, and explore the potential of LBBP to serve as an alternative primary therapy to realize cardiac resynchronization.

Electrocardiogram-based deep learning improves outcome prediction following cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS

This study aims to identify and visualize electrocardiogram (ECG) features using an explainable deep learning-based algorithm to predict cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcome. Its performance is compared with current guideline ECG criteria and QRSAREA.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A deep learning algorithm, trained on 1.1 million ECGs from 251 473 patients, was used to compress the median beat ECG, thereby summarizing most ECG features into only 21 explainable factors (FactorECG). Pre-implantation ECGs of 1306 CRT patients from three academic centres were converted into their respective FactorECG. FactorECG predicted the combined clinical endpoint of death, left ventricular assist device, or heart transplantation [c-statistic 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.72], significantly outperforming QRSAREA and guideline ECG criteria [c-statistic 0.61 (95% CI 0.58-0.64) and 0.57 (95% CI 0.54-0.60), P < 0.001 for both]. The addition of 13 clinical variables was of limited added value for the FactorECG model when compared with QRSAREA (Δ c-statistic 0.03 vs. 0.10). FactorECG identified inferolateral T-wave inversion, smaller right precordial S- and T-wave amplitude, ventricular rate, and increased PR interval and P-wave duration to be important predictors for poor outcome. An online visualization tool was created to provide interactive visualizations (https://crt.ecgx.ai).

CONCLUSION

Requiring only a standard 12-lead ECG, FactorECG held superior discriminative ability for the prediction of clinical outcome when compared with guideline criteria and QRSAREA, without requiring additional clinical variables. End-to-end automated visualization of ECG features allows for an explainable algorithm, which may facilitate rapid uptake of this personalized decision-making tool in CRT.

On-screen image-guided lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Feasibility and outcome in a multicenter setting

Background

Image guidance to assist left ventricular (LV) lead placement may improve outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but previous approaches and results varied greatly, and multicenter feasibility is lacking altogether.

Objective

We sought to investigate the multicenter feasibility of image guidance for periprocedural assistance of LV lead placement for CRT.

Methods

In 30 patients from 3 hospitals, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed within 3 months prior to CRT to identify myocardial scar and late mechanical activation (LMA). LMA was determined using radial strain, plotted over time. Segments without scar but clear LMA were classified as optimal for LV lead placement, according to an accurate 36-segment model of the whole heart. LV leads were navigated using image overlay with periprocedural fluoroscopy. After 6 months, volumetric response and super-response were defined as ≥15% or ≥30% reduction in LV end-systolic volume, respectively.

Results

Periprocedural image guidance was successfully performed in all CRT patients (age 66 ± 10 years; 59% men, 62% with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 69% with left bundle branch block). LV leads were placed as follows: within (14%), adjacent (62%), or remote (24%) from the predefined target. According to the conventional 18-segment model, a remote position occurred only once (3%). On average, 86% of patients demonstrated a volumetric response (mean LV end-systolic volume reduction 36 ± 29%), and 66% of all patients were super-responders.

Conclusion

On-screen image guidance for LV lead placement in CRT was feasible in a multicenter setting. Efficacy will be further investigated in the randomized controlled ADVISE (Advanced Image Supported Lead Placement in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial (NCT05053568).

Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a novel procedure for treatment of patients with dyssynchronous heart failure. Current evidence is limited to observational studies with small patient numbers.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of leadless LV endocardial pacing.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Mean differences (MDs) in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6 months postprocedure were combined using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochrane Q test, I2, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots were constructed to detect publication bias.

RESULTS

Five studies with 181 patients were included in the final analysis. Procedural success rate was 90.6%. Clinical response rate was 63%, with mean improvement in NYHA functional class of 0.43 (MD -0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.76 to -0.1; P = .01), with high heterogeneity (P <.001; I2 = 81.1%). There was a mean increase in LVEF of 6.3% (MD 6.3; 95% CI 4.35-8.19; P <.001, with low heterogeneity (P = 0.84; I2 <0.001%). The echocardiographic response rate was 54%. Procedure-related complication and mortality rates were 23.8% and 2.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of leadless LV endocardial pacing for CRT supports its use as a second-line therapy in patients in whom standard CRT is not possible or has been ineffective. Improvements in safety profile will facilitate widespread uptake in the treatment of these patients.

Leadless Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: Advances, Challenges and Future Directions

Leadless left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) represents the merger of two rapidly progressing areas in the field of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). It combines the attractive concepts of pacing the native conduction system to allow more physiological activation of the myocardium than conventional biventricular pacing, with the potential added benefits of avoiding long-term complications associated with transvenous leads via leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing. This perspective article will first review the evidence for the efficacy of leadless pacing in CRT. We then summarise the procedural steps and pilot data for leadless LBBAP, followed by a discussion of the safety and efficacy of this novel technique. Finally, we will examine how further mechanistic evidence may shed light to which patients may benefit most from leadless LBBAP, and how improvements in current experience and technology could promote widespread uptake and expand current clinical indications.

Fifteen-Year Differences in Indications for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in International Guidelines-Insights from the Heart Failure Registries of the European Society of Cardiology

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) applied to selected patients with heart failure (HF) improves their prognosis. In recent years, eligibility criteria for CRT have regularly changed. This study aimed to investigate the changes in eligibility of real-life HF patients for CRT over the past fifteen years. We reviewed European and North American guidelines from this period and applied them to HF patients from the ESC-HF Pilot and ESC-Long-Term Registries. Taking into consideration the criteria assessed in this study (including all classes of recommendations i.e., class I, IIa and IIb, as well as patients with AF and SR), the 2013 (ESC) guidelines would have qualified the most patients for CRT (266, 18.3%), while the 2015 (ESC) guidelines would have qualified the least (115, 7.9%; p-value for differences between all analyzed papers <0.0001). There were only 26 patients (1.8%) who would be eligible for CRT using the class I recommendations across all of the guidelines. These results demonstrate the variability in recommendations for CRT over the years. Moreover, this data indicates underuse of this form of pacing in HF and highlights the need for more studies in order to improve the outcomes of HF patients and further personalize their management.

Left Ventricular Lead Placement Guided by Reduction in QRS Area

Background: Reduction in QRS area after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with improved long-term clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the reduction in QRS area is associated with hemodynamic improvement by pacing different LV sites and can be used to guide LV lead placement. Methods: Patients with a class Ia/IIa CRT indication were prospectively included from three hospitals. Acute hemodynamic response was assessed as the relative change in maximum rate of rise of left ventricular (LV) pressure (%∆LVdP/dt_max). Change in QRS area (∆QRS area), in QRS duration (∆QRS duration), and %∆LVdP/dt_max were studied in relation to different LV pacing locations within a patient. Results: Data from 52 patients paced at 188 different LV pacing sites were investigated. Lateral LV pacing resulted in a larger %∆LVdP/dt_max than anterior or posterior pacing (p = 0.0007). A similar trend was found for ∆QRS area (p = 0.001) but not for ∆QRS duration (p = 0.23). Pacing from the proximal electrode pair resulted in a larger %∆LVdP/dt_max (p = 0.004), and ∆QRS area (p = 0.003) but not ∆QRS duration (p = 0.77). Within patients, correlation between ∆QRS area and %∆LVdP/dt_max was 0.76 (median, IQR 0.35; 0,89). Conclusion: Within patients, ∆QRS area is associated with %∆LVdP/dt_max at different LV pacing locations. Therefore, QRS area, which is an easily, noninvasively obtainable and objective parameter, may be useful to guide LV lead placement in CRT.

Advanced image-supported lead placement in cardiac resynchronisation therapy: protocol for the multicentre, randomised controlled ADVISE trial and early economic evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Achieving optimal placement of the left ventricular (LV) lead in cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is a prerequisite in order to achieve maximum clinical benefit, and is likely to help avoid non-response. Pacing outside scar tissue and targeting late activated segments may improve outcome. The present study will be the first randomised controlled trial to compare the efficacy of real-time image-guided LV lead delivery to conventional CRT implantation. In addition, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of targeted lead implantation, an early decision analytic model was developed, and described here.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multicentre, interventional, randomised, controlled trial will be conducted in a total of 130 patients with a class I or IIa indication for CRT implantation. Patients will be stratified to ischaemic heart failure aetiology and 1:1 randomised to either empirical lead placement or live image-guided lead placement. Ultimate lead location and echocardiographic assessment will be performed by core laboratories, blinded to treatment allocation and patient information. Late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) and CINE-CMR with feature-tracking postprocessing software will be used to semi-automatically determine myocardial scar and late mechanical activation. The subsequent treatment file with optimal LV-lead positions will be fused with the fluoroscopy, resulting in live target-visualisation during the procedure. The primary endpoint is the difference in percentage of successfully targeted LV-lead location. Secondary endpoints are relative percentage reduction in indexed LV end-systolic volume, a hierarchical clinical endpoint, and quality of life. The early analytic model was developed using a Markov-model, consisting of seven mutually exclusive health states.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee Utrecht (NL73416.041.20). All participants are required to provide written informed consent. Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05053568; Trial NL8666.