Device Therapy in Heart Failure

Clinical Outcomes of Permanent Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Block and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction >35 vs. ≤35%

Aims

The present study aimed to compare the effects of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) on cardiac function and clinical outcomes in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35 vs. ≤35%.

Methods and Results

Thirty-six consecutive patients with LBBB and LVEF <50% were enrolled. All patients were followed up for a mean of 6 months. The successful LBBAP was defined as a paced QRS complex presented as right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology and QRSd < 130 ms. Echocardiography parameters, pacing parameters and clinical outcomes were collected. The successful LBBAP was achieved in 77.8% of all cases (28/36). In LVEF > 35% group (70 ± 8 years, 9 male), the success rate was 81.0% (17/21). QRSd significantly decreased from 174 ± 23 ms to 108 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001). The pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude were 0.6 ± 0.2 V @ 0.5 ms and 12 ± 7 mV, respectively. In LVEF ≤ 35% group (69 ± 5 years, 9 male), the success rate was 73.3% (11/15) with QRSd decreasing from 188 ± 25 ms to 107 ± 11 ms (P < 0.001). The hyperresponders to LBBAP (functional recovery and LVEF ≥ 50%) in LVEF > 35% group was 52.9%, which were almost twice of that in LVEF ≤ 35% group (33.3%). Whether patients had LBBAP or left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), patients in the LVEF > 35% group showed significantly lower incidence of heart failure hospitalizations or death from any cause (hazard ratio in LVEF > 35% group, 0.22; 95%CI, 0.06 to 0.75, P = 0.011).

Conclusions

LBBAP can significantly shorten the QRSd and improve cardiac function in LBBB patients with either LVEF > 35 or ≤ 35%. LBBAP should be considered as an effective therapy for preventing the deterioration of cardiac function in early-stage heart failure patients with LBBB and LVEF > 35%.

T-wave area as biomarker of clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS

There is increasing evidence that left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology on the electrocardiogram is a positive predictor for response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We previously demonstrated that the vectorcardiography (VCG)-derived T-wave area predicts echocardiographic CRT response in LBBB patients. In the present study, we investigate whether the T-wave area also predicts long-term clinical outcome to CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a retrospective study consisting of 335 CRT recipients. Primary endpoint were the composite of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, heart transplantation, left ventricular assist device implantation or death during a 3-year follow-up period. HF hospitalization and death alone were secondary endpoints. The patient subgroup with a large T-wave area and LBBB 36% reached the primary endpoint, which was considerably less (P < 0.01) than for patients with LBBB and a small T-wave area or non-LBBB patients with a small or large T-wave area (48, 57, and 51%, respectively). Similar differences were observed for the secondary endpoints, HF hospitalization (31 vs. 51, 51, and 38%, respectively, P < 0.01) and death (19 vs. 42, 34, and 42%, respectively, P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, a large T-wave area and LBBB were the only independent predictors of the combined endpoint besides high creatinine levels and use of diuretics.

CONCLUSION

T-wave area may be useful as an additional biomarker to stratify CRT candidates and improve selection of those most likely to benefit from CRT. A large T-wave area may derive its predictive value from reflecting good intrinsic myocardial properties and a substrate for CRT.

Patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy should also undergo implantation of a primary prevention defibrillator: the con perspective

This article describes a 45-year-old lady with longstanding dilated cardiomyopathy, who has progressed to New York Heart Association class III and has failed to respond to optimal pharmacologic therapy. On the basis of gender and the presence of an left bundle branch block, she has good prospects of responding to cardiac resynchronization therapy. In the background of nonischemic cardiomyopathy and the absence of myocardial scarring on cardiovascular magnetic resonance, her annualized risk of sudden cardiac death is low, estimated at 2.6%.

Absolute survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy according to baseline QRS duration: a multinational 10-year experience: data from the Multicenter International CRT Study

BACKGROUND

In the major trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the survival benefit of the therapy, relative to control subjects, increases with QRS duration. In the non-CRT heart failure population, however, a wide QRS duration is associated with a shorter survival. Relative survival benefit from a therapy, however, is not synonymous with a longer absolute survival. We sought to determine whether baseline QRS duration relates to the absolute survival after CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this prospective, longitudinal, observational study, 3,319 consecutive patients undergoing CRT (QRS 120-149 ms 26%, QRS 150-199 ms 58%, and QRS ≥200 ms 16%) were assessed in relation to mortality over 10 years. Overall mortality rates (per 100 patient-years) were 9.2%, 9.3%, and 13.3% in the 3 groups, respectively (all P < .001). Cardiac mortality rates were 6.2, 6.0, and 9.9 per 100 patient-years, respectively (all P < .001). Compared with the QRS 120-149 ms group, cardiac mortality was highest in the QRS ≥200 ms group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.72 [95% CI 1.35-2.19], P < .001), independent of age, gender, New York Heart Association class, presence of atrial fibrillation, heart failure etiology, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Median survival after CRT was longest in patients with a width of QRS 120-149 ms and shortest in patients with a QRS ≥200 ms (P < .001). In multivariable analyses, a QRS ≥200 ms emerged as a powerful independent predictor of both overall (HR 1.44 [95% CI 1.07-1.94], P = .017) and cardiac mortality (HR 1.59 [95% CI 1.14-2.24], P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

At long-term follow-up, absolute overall and cardiac survival after CRT is similar in patients with a preimplant QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms and 150 to 199 ms but markedly shorter in patients with a QRS ≥200 ms.

Quantification of survival gain from cardiac resynchronization therapy: nonlinear growth with time, and greater gain in low-risk patients, make raw trial data an underestimate of real-world behavior

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to examine the impact of calculation-window duration on lifespan gain (as observed in trials) and on who gains most.

BACKGROUND

The landmark trials of biventricular pacing (cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]) typically ran for <1 device battery life, and they may therefore underestimate lifespan benefit over longer durations.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of biventricular pacing trials to calculate lifespan gained: first, within the duration of randomized controlled trial data up to 2 years; second, over a 5-year typical battery life; and third, over >1 battery life. Importantly, we applied the Gompertz method for age-related increase in mortality from non-CRT-preventable causes.

RESULTS

Five landmark trials (COMPANION [Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure], CARE-HF (CArdiac REsynchronization-Heart Failure), MADIT-CRT [Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy], REVERSE [Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction], RAFT (Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure)) provided data for 2 years (6,561 patients), with an average hazard ratio of 0.71. Lifespan gained across all trials increased nonlinearly with time from 0.1 month at 1 year, to 0.5 month at 2 years, and a projected 6.5 months at 5 years (65 times more than at 1 year). After multiple devices, it reached 14 months, involving on average 1.6 devices (i.e., 8.8 months per device implanted). Moreover, while over a short window (e.g., 2 years), lower-mortality patients may gain less than higher-mortality patients (1.4 vs. 2.3 months), their positions reverse by 15 years (16.0 vs. 13.7 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Lifespan gain from biventricular pacing rises nonlinearly with time. Early on, higher-risk patients exhibit more gain, but later, lower-risk patients exhibit more gain. Quantifying gain over less than a patient's lifetime underestimates lifespan gain. Over the first 1 or 2 years, lower-risk patients may seem to gain less, although they may ultimately be the ones who gain the most.