Cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization in nonresponders and incomplete responders using electrical dyssynchrony mapping

Optimizing outcomes from cardiac resynchronization therapy: what do recent data and insights say?

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF) in approximately two-thirds of recipients, with a third remaining CRT 'non-responders.' There is an increasing body of evidence exploring the reasons behind non-response, as well as ways to preempt or counteract it.

AREAS COVERED

This review will examine the most recent evidence regarding optimizing outcomes from CRT, as well as explore whether traditional CRT indeed remains the best first-line therapy for electrical resynchronization in HF. We will start by discussing methods of preempting non-response, such as refining patient selection and procedural technique, before reviewing how responses can be optimized post-implantation. For the purpose of this review, evidence was gathered from electronic literature searches (via PubMed and GoogleScholar), with a particular focus on primary evidence published in the last 5 years.

EXPERT OPINION

Ever-expanding research in the field of device therapy has armed physicians with more tools than ever to treat dyssynchronous HF. Newer developments, such as artificial intelligence (AI) guided device programming and conduction system pacing (CSP) are particularly exciting, and we will discuss how they could eventually lead to truly personalized care by maximizing outcomes from CRT.

Electrical dyssynchrony mapping and optimization of nonresponders in patients programmed with the adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy algorithm

BACKGROUND

The adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (aCRT) algorithm provides an important clinical benefit. However, a significant number of patients are nonresponders.

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to quantify electrical synchrony in patients programmed with aCRT and to assess the echocardiographic effects of optimization in CRT nonresponders and incomplete responders.

METHODS

We studied 125 patients programmed with aCRT and measured electrical synchrony at multiple device settings using novel electrical dyssynchrony mapping (EDM) technology. Electrical synchrony was quantified as cardiac resynchronization index (CRI), a measure that analyzes areas between multiple pairs of anterior and posterior electrograms and calculates synchrony normalized to native rhythm.

RESULTS

CRI improved from baseline aCRT settings to optimal settings on the basis of EDM (56%±29% vs 92%±12%; P<.001). Patients programmed with left ventricle (LV)-only aCRT (group 1, n=68 [54%]) had a higher CRI (62%±25% vs 48%±31%; P=.014) than did patients programmed with biventricular aCRT (group 2, n=57 [46%]). In group 1 and group 2, optimal CRI during sequential biventricular (92%±13% and 93%±9%, respectively) and LV-only (92%±6% and 91%±7%, respectively) pacing was significantly (P<.001) higher than CRI at baseline aCRT setting. In a subset of 53 nonresponders optimized using EDM, there were significant improvements in CRI (37%±25%; P<.0001), LV ejection fraction (6.2%±6.6%; P<.0001), end-diastolic volume (9.5±28.2 mL; P=.015), end-systolic volume (13.4±24.9 mL; P<.001), and transverse (1.5%±4.4%; P=.014), longitudinal (1.0%±2.5%; P=.003), and circumferential (2.6%±8.5%; P=.047) strain.

CONCLUSION

Electrical synchrony improves 56% with CRT using aCRT programming and 92% with EDM optimization. Optimization of aCRT-programmed nonresponders results in significant improvements in LV size and systolic function, offering the possibility of converting CRT nonresponders into responders.

Emergent role of dynamic optimization in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

Suboptimal device programming is frequent in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the role of device optimization and the most appropriate technique are still unknown. The aim of our study was to analyse the effect of different CRT optimization techniques within a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL for studies comparing outcomes with empirical device settings or optimization using echocardiography, static algorithms or dynamic algorithms. Studies investigating the effect of optimization in non-responders were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies with 4346 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Of the treatments and outcomes examined, a significant difference was found only between dynamic algorithms and echocardiography, with the former leading to a higher echocardiographic response rate [odds ratio (OR): 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-3.35], lower heart failure hospitalization rate (OR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.99) and greater improvement in 6-minute walk test [mean difference (MD): 45.52 m, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3.91-82.44 m]. We found no significant difference between empirical settings, static algorithms and dynamic algorithms. Seven studies with 228 patients reported response rates after optimization in non-responders. Altogether, 34.3%-66.7% of initial non-responders showed improvement after optimization, depending on response criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

At the time of CRT implantation, dynamic algorithms may serve as a resource-friendly alternative to echocardiographic optimization, with similar or better mid-term outcomes. However, their superiority over empirical device settings needs to be investigated in further trials. For non-responders, CRT optimization should be considered, as the majority of patients experience improvement.

A Comparative Analysis of Apical Rocking and Septal Flash: Two Views of the Same Systole?

Heart failure (HF) is a complex medical condition characterized by both electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony. Both dyssynchrony mechanisms are intricately linked together, but the current guidelines for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) rely only on the electrical dyssynchrony criteria, such as the QRS complex duration. This possible inconsistency may result in undertreating eligible individuals who could benefit from CRT due to their mechanical dyssynchrony, even if they fail to fulfill the electrical criteria. The main objective of this literature review is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the practical value of echocardiography for the assessment of left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony using parameters such as septal flash and apical rocking, which have proven their relevance in patient selection for CRT. The secondary objectives aim to offer an overview of the relationship between septal flash and apical rocking, to emphasize the primary drawbacks and benefits of using echocardiography for evaluation of septal flash and apical rocking, and to offer insights into potential clinical applications and future research directions in this area. Conclusion: there is an opportunity to render resynchronization therapy more effective for every individual; septal flash and apical rocking could be a very useful and straightforward echocardiography resource.

Determination of sensed and paced atrial-ventricular delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Optimization of atrial-ventricular delay (AVD) during atrial sensing (SAVD) and pacing (PAVD) provides the most effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We demonstrate a novel electrocardiographic methodology for quantifying electrical synchrony and optimizing SAVD/PAVD.

METHODS

We studied 40 CRT patients with LV activation delay. Atrial-sensed to RV-sensed (As-RVs) and atrial-paced to RV-sensed (Ap-RVs) intervals were measured from intracardiac electrograms (IEGM). LV-only pacing was performed over a range of SAVD/PAVD settings. Electrical dyssynchrony (cardiac resynchronization index; CRI) was measured at each setting using a multilead ECG system placed over the anterior and posterior torso. Biventricular pacing, which included multiple interventricular delays, was also conducted in a subset of 10 patients.

RESULTS

When paced LV-only, peak CRI was similar (93 ± 5% vs. 92 ± 5%) during atrial sensing or pacing but optimal PAVD was 61 ± 31 ms greater than optimal SAVD. The difference between As-RVs and Ap-RVs intervals on IEGMs (62 ± 31 ms) was nearly identical. The slope of the correlation line (0.98) and the correlation coefficient r (0.99) comparing the 2 methods of assessing SAVD-PAVD offset were nearly 1 and the y-intercept (0.63 ms) was near 0. During simultaneous biventricular (BiV) pacing at short AVD, SAVD and PAVD programming did not affect CRI, but CRI was significantly (p < .05) lower during atrial sensing at long AVD.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel methodology for measuring electrical dyssynchrony was used to determine electrically optimal SAVD/PAVD during LV-only pacing. When BiV pacing, shorter AVDs produce better electrical synchrony.

Quest for the ideal assessment of electrical ventricular dyssynchrony in cardiac resynchronization therapy

This paper reviews the literature on assessing electrical dyssynchrony for patient selection in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The guideline-recommended electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for CRT are QRS duration and morphology, established through inclusion criteria in large CRT trials. However, both QRS duration and LBBB morphology have their shortcomings. Over the past decade, various alternative measures of ventricular dyssynchrony have been proposed, ranging from simple options such as vectorcardiography (VCG), ultra-high frequency ECG, and electrical dyssynchrony mapping to more advanced techniques such as ECG imaging electro-anatomic mapping. Despite promising results, none of these methods have yet been widely adopted in daily clinical practice. The VCG is a relatively cost-effective option for potential clinical implementation, as it can be reconstructed from the standard 12‑lead ECG. With the emergence of conduction system pacing, in addition to predicting the outcome of conventional biventricular CRT, the assessment of electrical dyssynchrony holds promise for defining and optimizing the type of resynchronization strategy. Additionally, artificial intelligence has the potential to reveal unknown features for CRT outcomes, and computer models can provide deeper insights into the underlying mechanisms of these features.

Noninvasive Electrical Mapping Compared with the Paced QRS Complex for Optimizing CRT Programmed Settings and Predicting Multidimensional Response

The aim was to test the hypothesis that left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) activation from body surface electrical mapping (CardioInsight 252-electrode vest, Medtronic) identifies optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacing strategies and outcomes in 30 patients. The LV80, RV80, and BIV80 were defined as the times to 80% LV, RV, or biventricular electrical activation. Smaller differences in the LV80 and RV80 (|LV80-RV80|) with synchronized LV pacing predicted better LV function post-CRT (p = 0.0004) than the LV-paced QRS duration (p = 0.32). Likewise, a lower RV80 was associated with a better pre-CRT RV ejection fraction by CMR (r =  - 0.40, p = 0.04) and predicted post-CRT improvements in myocardial oxygen uptake (p = 0.01) better than the biventricular-paced QRS (p = 0.38), while a lower LV80 with BIV pacing predicted lower post-CRT B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (p = 0.02). RV pacing improved LV function with smaller |LV80-RV80| (p = 0.009). In conclusion, 3-D electrical mapping predicted favorable post-CRT outcomes and informed effective pacing strategies.

Managing arrhythmia in cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Arrhythmia is an extremely common finding in patients receiving cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Despite this, in the majority of randomised trials testing CRT efficacy, patients with a recent history of arrhythmia were excluded. Most of our knowledge into the management of arrhythmia in CRT is therefore based on arrhythmia trials in the heart failure (HF) population, rather than from trials dedicated to the CRT population. However, unique to CRT patients is the aim to reach as close to 100% biventricular pacing (BVP) as possible, with HF outcomes greatly influenced by relatively small changes in pacing percentage. Thus, in comparison to the average HF patient, there is an even greater incentive for controlling arrhythmia, to achieve minimal interference with the effective delivery of BVP. In this review, we examine both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, addressing their impact on CRT, and discuss the available evidence regarding optimal arrhythmia management in this patient group. We review pharmacological and procedural-based approaches, and lastly explore novel ways of harnessing device data to guide treatment of arrhythmia in CRT.

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.

Electrical dyssynchrony mapping and cardiac resynchronization therapy

PURPOSE

There is no clinical methodology for quantification or display of electrical dyssynchrony over a wide range of atrial-ventricular delays (AVD) and ventricular-ventricular delays (VVD) in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study aimed to develop a new methodology, based on wavefront fusion, for mapping electrical synchrony.

METHODS

A cardiac resynchronization index (CRI) was measured at multiple device settings in 90 patients. Electrical dyssynchrony maps (EDM) were constructed for each patient to display CRI at any combination of AVD and VVD. An optimal synchrony line (OSL) depicted the AVD/VVD combinations producing the highest CRIs. Fusion of right ventricular paced (RVp), left ventricular paced (LVp), and native wavefront offsets were calculated.

RESULTS

CRI significantly increased (p < 0.0001) from 58.0 ± 28.1% at baseline to 98.3 ± 1.7% at optimized settings. EDMs in patients with high-grade heart block (n = 20) had an OSL parallel to the simultaneous biventricular pacing (BiVP_VV-SIM) line with leftward shift across all AVDs (RVp-LVp^OFFSET = 50.5 ± 29.8 ms). EDMs in patients with intact AV node conduction (n = 64) had an OSL parallel to the BiVP_VV-SIM line with leftward shift at short AVDs (RVp-LVp^OFFSET = 33.4 ± 23.3 ms), curvilinear at intermediate AVDs (triple fusion), and vertical at long AVDs (native-LVp^OFFSET = 85.2 ± 22.8 ms) in all patients except those with poor LV lead position (n = 6).

CONCLUSION

A new methodology is described for quantifying and graphing electrical dyssynchrony over a physiologic range of AVDs/VVDs. This methodology offers a noninvasive, practical, clinical approach for measuring electrical synchrony that could be applied to optimization of CRT devices.