Evaluation of left ventricular based pacing in patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation

Biventricular versus left ventricular only stimulation: an echocardiographic substudy of the B-LEFT HF trial

BACKGROUND

The noninferiority of left ventricular pacing alone (LVp) compared with biventricular pacing (BIV) has not been yet definitely documented. In this study, we reviewed all the original echocardiographic measures of the Biventricular versus Left Univentricular Pacing with ICD Back-up in Heart Failure Patients (B-LEFT HF) trial in order to investigate mechanisms underlying LV remodelling with both pacing modalities.

METHODS

Patients with New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) III or IV despite optimal medical therapy, LVEF 35% or less, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) more than 55 mm, QRS duration at least 130 ms were randomized to BIV or LVp for 6 months. The primary end point was a composite of at least 1 point decrease in NYHA class and at least 5 mm decrease in left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD). An additional end point was a LVp reverse remodelling defined as at least 10% decrease in LVESD. Mitral regurgitation and all echocardiographic measures were reassessed after 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-three patients were enrolled. Seventy-six patients were in the BIV and 67 were in the LVp group. Left ventricular volumes decreased significantly without difference between groups (P = 0.8447). Similarly, left ventricular diameters decreased significantly in both groups with a significant decrease in LVESD with BIV (P < 0.0001), but not with LVp (P = 0.1383). LVEF improved in both groups without difference (P = 0.8072). Mitral regurgitation did not improve either with BIV, or with LVp.

CONCLUSION

The echocardiographic sub-analysis of B-LEFT study showed the substantial equivalence of LVp in favouring left ventricular reverse remodelling as compared with BIV.

'Optimized' LV only pacing using a dual chamber pacemaker as a cost effective alternative to CRT

Background

Cardiac Resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains largely under-used in developing countries owing to the high cost of therapy. In this pilot study, we explore ‘optimized’ Left Ventricle Only Pacing (LVOP) as a cost effective alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy in selected patients with heart failure.

Hypothesis

In economically poorer patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block (LBBB) and intact AV node conduction, synchronization can be obtained using a dual chamber pacemaker (leads in right atrium and Left ventricle) with the help of 2D strain imaging.

Methods and results

4 patients underwent LVOP for symptomatic heart failure. Post procedure ‘optimization’ was done using 12 lead electrocardiography and 2D- Strain imaging. Difference between Time to Peak longitudinal strain and Aortic valve Closure (Diff T_PL-AC) was calculated for each segment at different AV delays and the AV delay with the smallest Diff T_PL-AC was programmed. The mean AV delay that resulted in electrical and mechanical synchrony was 150 ms. After a mean follow up of 6 months, all patients had improved by at least 1 NYHA class. The mean reduction in QRS duration post procedure was −54.5 ± 22.82 ms and the mean improvement in EF was 7 ± 2.75%.

Conclusion

Optimized LVOP using 2D strain and ECG can be a cost-effective alternative to CRT in patients with LBBB, heart failure and normal AV node conduction.

Comparative electromechanical and hemodynamic effects of left ventricular and biventricular pacing in dyssynchronous heart failure: electrical resynchronization versus left-right ventricular interaction

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of the working mechanism of cardiac resynchronization therapy by comparing animal experimental, clinical, and computational data on the hemodynamic and electromechanical consequences of left ventricular pacing (LVP) and biventricular pacing (BiVP).

BACKGROUND

It is unclear why LVP and BiVP have comparative positive effects on hemodynamic function of patients with dyssynchronous heart failure.

METHODS

Hemodynamic response to LVP and BiVP (% change in maximal rate of left ventricular pressure rise [LVdP/dtmax]) was measured in 6 dogs and 24 patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block followed by computer simulations of local myofiber mechanics during LVP and BiVP in the failing heart with left bundle branch block. Pacing-induced changes of electrical activation were measured in dogs using contact mapping and in patients using a noninvasive multielectrode electrocardiographic mapping technique.

RESULTS

LVP and BiVP similarly increased LVdP/dtmax in dogs and in patients, but only BiVP significantly decreased electrical dyssynchrony. In the simulations, LVP and BiVP increased total ventricular myofiber work to the same extent. While the LVP-induced increase was entirely due to enhanced right ventricular (RV) myofiber work, the BiVP-induced increase was due to enhanced myofiber work of both the left ventricle (LV) and RV. Overall, LVdP/dtmax correlated better with total ventricular myofiber work than with LV or RV myofiber work alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Animal experimental, clinical, and computational data support the similarity of hemodynamic response to LVP and BiVP, despite differences in electrical dyssynchrony. The simulations provide the novel insight that, through ventricular interaction, the RV myocardium importantly contributes to the improvement in LV pump function induced by cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Chronic ventricular pacing in children: toward prevention of pacing-induced heart disease

In children with congenital or acquired complete atrioventricular (AV) block, ventricular pacing is indicated to increase heart rate. Ventricular pacing is highly beneficial in these patients, but an important side effect is that it induces abnormal electrical activation patterns. Traditionally, ventricular pacemaker leads are positioned at the right ventricle (RV). The dyssynchronous pattern of ventricular activation due to RV pacing is associated with an acute and chronic impairment of left ventricular (LV) function, structural remodeling of the LV, and increased risk of heart failure. Since the degree of pacing-induced dyssynchrony varies between the different pacing sites, ‘optimal-site pacing’ should aim at the prevention of mechanical dyssynchrony. Especially in children, generally paced from a very early age and having a perspective of life-long pacing, the preservation of cardiac function during chronic ventricular pacing should take high priority. In the perspective of the (patho)physiology of ventricular pacing and the importance of the sequence of activation, this paper provides an overview of the current knowledge regarding possible alternative sites for chronic ventricular pacing. Furthermore, clinical implications and practical concerns of the various pacing sites are discussed. The review concludes with recommendations for optimal-site pacing in children.

[Indication for CRT]

Since the first studies on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the evidence for the benefit of this electrical therapy in heart failure has continuously grown. Thus, CRT has been firmly implemented in current therapy guidelines for heart failure. However, there are distinct differences between the different guidelines published. In addition, indications for CRT are still evolving in certain patient groups. This article aims to give an overview of the current guidelines for CRT and also discusses some of the differences between the different guidelines. It also provides an outlook for potential candidates for CRT in the future where current guidelines do not yet define a clear indication for implantation of such a device.

Chronic left ventricular pacing preserves left ventricular function in children

Chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing can induce structural and functional cardiac deterioration. Because animal studies showed a benefit of left ventricular (LV) over RV pacing, this study compared the effects of chronic RV and LV pacing in children. Retrospectively, echocardiographic data were evaluated from 18 healthy children (control subjects) and from children undergoing chronic epicardial RV pacing (7 RVP) or LV pacing (7 LVP). Assessment included LV end-diastolic wall thickness (LVEDWT) and end-systolic wall thickness (LVESWT) as well as LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and end-systolic diameter (LVESD). The shortening fraction and eccentricity index (LV diameter/2xLV wall thickness) were calculated as measures of LV function and eccentricity, respectively. Duration of QRS and septal posterior wall motion delay (SPWMD) were used as measures of electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony, respectively. A p value less than 0.05 determined significance. As the findings showed, LVEDD, LVESD, LVEDWT, and LVESWT were not significantly different between the groups. The shortening fraction was significantly lower in the RVP (21.7%+/-6.0%) than in the LVP (32.2%+/-5.2%) or control (29.3%+/-4.3%) children. The systolic LV eccentricity index was significantly larger in the RVP (1.8+/-0.2) than in the LVP (1.4+/-0.1) or control (1.4+/-0.2) children. The SPWMD was significantly larger in the RVP (338+/-20 ms) than in the LVP (-16+/-14 ms) or control (-5+/-35 ms) group, whereas QRS duration was similarly longer in the RVP (157+/-10 ms) and LVP (158+/-22 ms) groups compared than in the control group (69+/-7 ms). The authors conclude that LV function in children is preserved by chronic pacing at the LV lateral wall.

Comparison of benefits and mortality in cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation versus patients in sinus rhythm (Results of the Spanish Atrial Fibrillation and Resynchronization [SPARE] Study)

The efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and the need for atrioventricular junction ablation in these patients is controversial. The aim of the study was to analyze CRT results in patients with permanent AF. A total of 470 consecutive patients who underwent CRT in 6 centers were included in this study. Of these patients, 126 (27%) had permanent AF. Patients were evaluated at baseline and 12 months. No difference was found in the magnitude of improvement experienced by patients with AF compared with those in sinus rhythm (SR) with respect to quality of life, distance in 6-minute walking test, and left ventricular reverse remodeling. Despite the beneficial effects of CRT, death from refractory heart failure at 12 months was higher in patients with AF (17 of 126; 13.5%) than those in SR (14/344; 4.1%; p <0,001). Furthermore, permanent AF was an independent predictive factor for mortality from refractory heart failure (hazard ratio 5.4, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 15.1). In conclusion, patients with AF treated with CRT who survived at the 12-month follow-up had the same functional improvement and remodeling as those in SR. However, AF was an independent risk factor for mortality from heart failure after CRT implantation.

Management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

There is a well-documented relationship and a complex interaction between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure. The coexistence of these 2 clinical entities renders their management even more challenging.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched current literature to review the management of AF in patients with heart failure. The cornerstones of AF treatment are rate control, cardioversion, and maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR), and prevention of thromboembolism. The issue of rhythm versus rate control remains unresolved. Nonpharmacologic therapies such as radiofrequency catheter ablation of the atrioventricular node with permanent pacemaker implantation, curative catheter ablation of AF, and cardiac resynchronization therapy are emerging and may alter the management of these patients.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of atrial fibrillation in the setting of heart failure encompasses a variety of approaches including drugs, devices, and ablation. Larger randomized trials are required to clarify the management of such patients.

Future of cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has proven to be a beneficial treatment option in patients with severe drug refractory heart failure in the presence of electromechanical dyssynchrony. More recent trials have demonstrated mortality benefits associated with CRT, and even further reductions when combined with an internal cardiac defibrillator. Addressing the 20–30% cohort of patients who do not derive benefit from this novel therapy is a rapidly emerging area of research activity with encouraging results. Here we review the CRT trial evidence that forms the basis of patient-selection guidelines for device implantation and describe the present outstanding issues, alongside identifying future trends in CRT that appear promising.

[Electrotherapy of cardiac failure]

Intracardiac conduction disturbances, mostly manifested as a left bundle branch block (LBBB), are common findings in cardiac failure and associated with a poor prognosis. LBBB is a marker of disease progression and also leads to worsened cardiac hemodynamics by dyssynchronous contraction that can accelerate progression of the underlying disease. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can reduce the negative effects of these disturbances leading to improvement in hemodynamics and long-term improvement in cardiopulmonary exercise tolerance, reduction of left ventricular volumes and functional mitral regurgitation. Prospective multicenter studies, such as the CARE-HF and COMPANION trials have demonstrated reduced mortality with CRT or combined treatment with defibrillator capability (CRT-D). Thus, CRT has been adopted in the current guidelines of cardiology societies. Nevertheless, there are a number of open issues with CRT, such as the high number of non-responders or the value of CRT in patients with atrial fibrillation, narrow QRS complex and mild cardiac failure or asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction. In addition, the question whether every CRT patient needs a device with defibrillating capabilities is not fully resolved, at least for patients with dilative cardiomyopathy.

Comparison of usefulness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure versus patients with sinus rhythm and heart failure

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure is high, but data about the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with chronic AF are scarce. In this prospective observational study of 263 consecutive patients, CRT was performed in 96 patients (37%) with chronic AF and 167 patients (63%) with sinus rhythm (SR). Echocardiographic and clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and 3 and 12 months. Reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling is defined as LV end-systolic volume decrease > or =10%. Hospitalization rates for heart failure in the year before and after implantation were compared. Baseline characteristics between patients with and without AF were similar, but the AF group had smaller LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes and larger left atrial dimensions. New York Heart Association class, 6-minute walking distance, quality-of-life score, LV ejection fraction, and mitral regurgitation improved significantly at 3 and 12 months in both groups, and the changes were similar. Reverse LV remodeling after 3 and 12 months was 74% and 82% (AF group) versus 77% and 83%, respectively (SR group, p = 0.79). After 1 year, cardioversion had occurred in 25% of patients with AF. In the year after implantation, significant decreases in hospitalizations for heart failure in both groups (84% and 90%) were documented. Long-term mortality was almost equal in both groups. In conclusion, this large-scale study shows that the benefit of CRT in patients with chronic AF and heart failure is similar to that in patients with SR. Patients with chronic AF and heart failure should be considered candidates for CRT.

Resynchronization therapy in the context of atrial fibrillation: Benefits and limitations

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure often coexist and are believed to directly predispose to each other. Cardiac resynchronization does not prevent or increase the induction of AF. However, new onset of AF does not seem to diminish the beneficial effects of CRT on symptoms, cardiac function and, more importantly, all-cause mortality if appropriate ventricular rate control by beta-blockers and digoxin is being achieved. While a pharmacological approach to control ventricular rate may be sufficient in most patients with paroxysmal AF or AF of shorter duration in those with permanent AF ablation strategies may be necessary. Observational studies and one randomized trial indicate a potential benefit of CRT in heart failure patients with chronic AF; particularly, biventricular pacing was superior compared to conventional right-univentricular stimulation. However, recent results suggest that even relatively high percentage biventricular capture may be inadequate, and that the benefits of CRT may only be extended to chronic AF patients with previous AV junctional ablation. Well designed and powered clinical trials are required before pacemaker dependency is created in large numbers of heart failure patients.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in clinical practice: need for electrical, mechanical, clinical and logistic synchronization

Considering the relatively short history of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the amount of available evidence of efficacy is impressive, and effectiveness studies are now required. Transfer of our experimentally gained knowledge into the real world raises issues that call for synchronization among the many specialists involved in chronic heart failure (CHF) management and CRT decision making. From an economic perspective, the demonstrated ability of CRT to reduce hospitalizations could help ease the burden on health systems derived from the growing incidence of CHF. Recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline revisions should encourage a synchronized approach to rational deployment of CRT in selected patients. Nevertheless, current QRS criteria for CRT candidacy do not directly address the key issue of identification of patients with a pacing-correctable mechanical dyssynchrony (and in clinical trials, 25-30% of implanted patients did not respond to CRT). Echocardiography could become an important adjunct (or even an alternative) to QRS duration for patient selection; routine implementation would require use of straightforward, reproducible measurements, possibly obtainable on standard equipment. Echocardiography could also help optimize site location, although this would not eliminate lead placement problems. A series of issues remain open for investigation, including the potential of CRT in patients with atrial fibrillation, impact of devices with defibrillation ability, effects of electrical/pharmacological tailoring, need for confirmation that efficacy of CRT extends into the long term and possible use of CRT in mild CHF. Interdisciplinary synchronization in the various phases of CRT (screening, proposing, implementing, optimizing and monitoring) should eventually help develop a coordinated system for patient referral.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: Role of patient selection

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-accepted and effective therapy for treating patients with a wide QRS complex, significant left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and symptoms of advanced heart failure. However, approximately 25% to 30% of patients fail to respond to this therapy. Most large studies have used electrical dyssynchrony (wide QRS) as a main entrance criterion. Emerging data suggest that mechanical dyssynchrony may be a more important factor in selecting appropriate candidates for CRT. New echocardiographic (ECHO) imaging modalities such as tissue Doppler imaging, three-dimensional ECHO, and speckle tracking ECHO are able to quantify left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony. These techniques are currently being used to assist in the selection of patients for CRT. Recently published and ongoing studies are addressing the use of CRT in patients who do not meet the standard criteria, such as patients with atrial fibrillation, mild to moderate heart failure, narrow QRS complex, and acute myocardial infarction.

Effect of Cardiac Resynchronization on the Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Severe Heart Failure

Background— Atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) and heart failure often coexist; however, the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on the incidence of AF and on the outcome of patients with new-onset AF remains undefined.

Methods and Results— In the CArdiac REsynchronisation in Heart Failure (CARE-HF) trial, 813 patients with moderate or severe heart failure were randomly assigned to pharmacological therapy alone or with the addition of CRT. The incidence of AF was assessed by adverse event reporting and by ECGs during follow-up, and the impact of new-onset AF on the outcome and efficacy of CRT was evaluated. By the end of the study (mean duration of follow-up 29.4 months), AF had been documented in 66 patients in the CRT group compared with 58 who received medical therapy only (16.1% versus 14.4%; hazard ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.73 to 1.50; P =0.79). There was no difference in the time until first onset of AF between groups. Mortality was higher in patients who developed AF, but AF was not a predictor in the multivariable model (hazard ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.67; P =0.37). In patients with new-onset AF, CRT significantly reduced the risk for all-cause mortality and all other predefined end points and improved ejection fraction and symptoms (no interaction between AF and CRT; all P >0.2).

Conclusions— Although CRT did not reduce the incidence of AF, CRT improved the outcome regardless of whether AF developed.

Left ventricular-based cardiac stimulation post AV nodal ablation evaluation (the PAVE study)

BACKGROUND

Chronic right ventricular pacing has been reported to promote cardiac dyssynchrony. The PAVE trial prospectively compared chronic biventricular pacing to right ventricular pacing in patients undergoing ablation of the AV node for management of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-four patients requiring AV node ablation were randomized to receive a biventricular pacing system (n = 103) or a right ventricular pacing system (n = 81). The study endpoints were change in the 6-minute hallway walk test, quality of life, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Patient characteristics were similar (64% male; age: 69 +/- 10 years, ejection fraction: 0.46 +/- 0.16; 83%, NYHA Class II or III). At 6 months postablation, patients treated with cardiac resynchronization had a significant improvement in 6-minute walk distance, (31%) above baseline (82.9 +/- 94.7 m), compared to patients receiving right ventricular pacing, (24%) above baseline (61.2 +/- 90.0 m) (P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the quality-of-life parameters. At 6 months postablation, the ejection fraction in the biventricular group (0.46 +/- 0.13) was significantly greater in comparison to patients receiving right ventricular pacing (0.41 +/- 0.13, P = 0.03). Patients with an ejection fraction <or=45% or with NYHA Class II/III symptoms receiving a biventricular pacemaker appear to have a greater improvement in 6-minute walk distance compared to patients with normal systolic function or Class I symptoms.

CONCLUSION

For patients undergoing AV node ablation for atrial fibrillation, biventricular pacing provides a significant improvement in the 6-minute hallway walk test and ejection fraction compared to right ventricular pacing. These beneficial effects of cardiac resynchronization appear to be greater in patients with impaired systolic function or with symptomatic heart failure.

[Indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy: Consensus 2005]

The indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing or ICD systems has to be highly differentiated to optimize the proportion of patients who derive significant symptomatic benefit from this therapy, on the one hand, and to avoid this invasive treatment in patients with a low probability of clinical success of CRT, on the other hand. As a consensus in 2005, it can be put forward that there is sufficient evidence for an indication for CRT from clinical studies for the following characteristics: 1) Heart failure in NYHA functional class III or IV (if cardiac recompensation to class III is at least temporarily successful), 2) left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35%, 3) QRS duration >130 ms, particularly if left bundle branch block is present, 4) sinus rhythm. In addition, available data also suggest an indication for CRT in patients with atrial fibrillation if the other criteria listed above are met. The indication for CRT is unclear in patients with other intraventricular conduction delay (particularly right bundle branch block) while patients with left bundle branch block and a QRS duration of 120-130 ms seem to benefit if echocardiographic criteria demonstrate ventricular dyssynchrony. Since a multiplicity of echocardiographic criteria of ventricular dyssynchrony exists which is neither standardized nor evaluated in large-scale randomized trials, ventricular dyssynchrony on echocardiography alone cannot be regarded as an established indication for CRT without a QRS complex > or =120 ms. Similarly, whether heart failure in functional state NYHA II should be regarded as a CRT indication is currently being investigated in the randomized RAFT and MADIT-CRT trials.

Impact of Upgrade to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Ventricular Arrhythmia Frequency in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

OBJECTIVES

This study compared cardiac resynchronization therapy's (CRT) impact on ventricular tachyarrhythmia susceptibility in patients who, due to worsening heart failure (HF) symptoms, underwent a replacement of a conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with a CRT-ICD.

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an effective addition to conventional treatment of HF in many patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. However, whether CRT-induced improvements in HF status also reduce susceptibility to life-threatening arrhythmias is less certain.

METHODS

Clinical and ICD electrogram data were evaluated in 18 consecutive ICD patients who underwent an upgrade to CRT-ICD. Pharmacologic HF therapy was not altered during follow-up. The definition of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) for each patient was as determined by device programming. Statistical comparisons used paired t tests.

RESULTS

Findings were recorded during two time periods: 47 +/- 21 months (range 24 to 70 months) before and 14 +/- 2 months (range 9 to 18 months) after CRT upgrade. At time of upgrade, patient age was 69 +/- 11 years and ejection fraction was 21 +/- 8%. Before CRT the frequency of VT, VF, and appropriate ICD shocks was 0.31 +/- 1.23, 0.047 +/- 0.083, and 0.048 +/- 0.085 episodes/month/patient, respectively. After CRT-ICD, VT and VF arrhythmia burdens and frequency of shocks were respectively 0.13 +/- 0.56, 0.001 +/- 0.004, and 0.003 +/- 0.016 episodes/month/patient (p = 0.59, 0.03, and 0.05 vs. pre-CRT).

CONCLUSIONS

Arrhythmia frequency and number of appropriate ICD treatments were reduced after upgrade to CRT-ICD for HF treatment. Thus, apart from hemodynamic benefits, CRT may also ameliorate ventricular tachyarrhythmia susceptibility in HF patients.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Encouraged by the clinical success of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the implantation rate has increased exponentially, although several limitations and unresolved issues of CRT have been identified. This review concerns issues that are encountered during implantation of CRT devices, including the role of electroanatomical mapping, whether CRT implantation should be accompanied by simultaneous atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation, procedural complications, and when to consider surgical left ventricular lead positioning. Furthermore, (echocardiographic) CRT optimization and assessment of CRT benefits after implantation are highlighted. Also, controversial issues such as the potential value of CRT in patients with mild heart failure or narrow QRS complex are addressed. Finally, open questions concerning when to combine CRT with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy and the cost-effectiveness of CRT are discussed.

Congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation: rhythm versus rate control

BACKGROUND

The incidence both of heart failure and atrial fibrillation is steadily increasing in the United States' population, and these conditions frequently coexist in the same patient. It is likely that the onset of one of these disorders leads to the onset and propagation of the other through multiple mechanisms. Several studies have investigated the prognosis of patients with both conditions, but a definitive conclusion regarding outcomes such as mortality and quality of life has yet to be determined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Evidence demonstrating the improvement of left ventricular function and other hemodynamic parameters with the restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm does exist. beta-blockade, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition, and aldosterone antagonism have been shown to improve survival in patients with heart failure. However, the efficacy of these therapies in patients with coexisting atrial fibrillation has not been adequately assessed. Furthermore, these therapies do not directly address the issue of rhythm management. The use of several antiarrhythmic medications and device therapy is becoming more frequent in the management of this subset of patients. Recent investigations of antiarrhythmic treatment have assessed outcomes such as survival, quality of life, exercise tolerance, and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Data from these studies suggest that antiarrhythmic therapy may be efficacious in such patients. Device therapy is another alternative which has been demonstrated to be at least as beneficial as medical therapy.

CONCLUSION

Both retrospective and prospective studies of antiarrhythmic therapy and device therapy have demonstrated promising results. Several studies are ongoing and will provide more insight into the management of such patients.

Comparison of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with sinus rhythm versus chronic atrial fibrillation

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a new therapeutic option for patients who have drug-refractory end-stage heart failure. Much information has been obtained from patients who have sinus rhythm, but the use of CRT in patients who have chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) has not been studied extensively. Accordingly, we evaluated the clinical response and long-term survival rate of CRT in patients who had heart failure and chronic AF, and the results were compared with those in patients who had sinus rhythm and who underwent CRT. Sixty patients who had end-stage heart failure (30 had sinus rhythm and 30 had chronic AF), New York Heart Association classes III to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, QRS interval >120 ms, and a left bundle branch block received a biventricular pacemaker. New York Heart Association class, Minnesota Quality of Life score, and 6-minute walking distance were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months of CRT. Long-term follow-up was </=2 years. New York Heart Association class, Minnesota Quality of Life score, and 6-minute walking distance improved significantly in the 2 groups after 6 months of CRT. The number of nonresponders was greater among patients who had AF. Nevertheless, the long-term survival rate was comparable between patients who had sinus rhythm and those who had AF. Patients who had AF demonstrated comparable benefit from CRT as those who had sinus rhythm.

Biventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillators improve survival compared with biventricular pacing alone in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Biventricular cardiac pacemakers provide important hemodynamic benefit in selected patients with heart failure and severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Nevertheless, these patients remain at high mortality risk. To address this issue, we examined mortality outcome in patients with heart failure treated with biventricular pacemakers alone and those treated with biventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population consisted of 126 consecutive patients with LV dysfunction and heart failure who received either a biventricular ICD (n = 62) or a biventricular pacemaker (n = 64) between January 1998 and December 2002. A minimum 12 months of follow-up was obtained in all survivors. ICD indications were conventional in all patients. Kaplan-Meier actuarial method and log rank statistics were used to calculate and compare survival rates in both groups. Comparison of mortality rates utilized Chi-square test. The two groups had similar clinical and demographic features, LV ejection fraction, and medication use. Average follow-up times were 13 +/- 11.8 months (range 4-60) and 18 +/- 13.2 months (range 0.5-53) for biventricular ICD and pacemaker groups, respectively. Overall mortality rate was significantly lower in the biventricular ICD group (13%, 8 deaths) compared to the pacemaker group (41%, 26 deaths) (P = 0.01). Further, the predominant survival benefit for ICD-treated patients becomes evident after the first 12 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The findings in this study, although necessarily limited in their interpretation by the absence of treatment randomization, suggest that biventricular ICDs offer a survival benefit compared to biventricular pacing alone. Furthermore, this benefit may be most apparent if other clinical factors do not preclude patient survival >1 year postimplant.

Improvement of left ventricular wall synchronization with multisite ventricular pacing in heart failure: a prospective study using Doppler tissue imaging

We sought to assess right, left and biventricular pacing effects on myocardial function by using pulsed-Doppler tissue imaging (DTI) and automated border detection (ABD) techniques which provide electromechanical delay (EMD) assessment of the different left ventricular walls.

METHODS

15 patients (67+/-7 years) with drug-resistant primitive dilated cardiomyopathy and QRS> or =140 ms received a pacemaker for multisite ventricular pacing. Echocardiography was performed after 1 month of biventricular pacing (BVP). Echocardiographic measurements were recorded during spontaneous rhythm (SpR), right ventricular pacing (RVP), left ventricular pacing (LVP) and BVP.

RESULTS

LV ejection fraction was statistically similar between the four rhythms. BVP showed a significant EMD decrease for the lateral LV wall vs. SpR, RVP and even LVP. LVP resulted in significantly longer aortic pre-ejection time vs. BVP while the EMD temporal dispersion (time between the shortest regional EMD and the longest one) was similar in the two modes.

CONCLUSIONS

BVP and LVP substantially reduce the EMD temporal dispersion of the four LV walls, but with a longer aortic pre-ejection time for LVP. In RVP, LVP and BVP, the septal LV wall is always activated later than during SpR. BVP and LVP are associated with a mitral regurgitation reduction.

Left ventricular pacing improves haemodynamic variables in patients with heart failure with a normal QRS duration

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and a normal QRS duration can benefit from left ventricular (VDD-LV) pacing.

DESIGN

Cardiac resynchronisation is reserved for patients with a broad QRS duration on the premise that systolic resynchronisation is the mechanism of benefit, yet improvement from pacing correlates poorly with QRS duration. In CHF patients with a broad QRS duration, those with a high resting pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) > 15 mm Hg benefit. In this acute haemodynamic VDD-LV pacing study, patients with CHF with a normal QRS duration were divided into two groups--patients with a resting PCWP > 15 mm Hg and patients with a resting PCWP < 15 mm Hg--to determine whether benefit is predicted by a high resting PCWP.

PATIENTS

20 patients with CHF, New York Heart Association functional class IIb-IV, all with a normal QRS duration (< or = 120 ms).

INTERVENTIONS

Temporary pacing wires were positioned to enable VDD-LV pacing and a pulmonary artery catheter was inserted for measurement of PCWP, right atrial pressure, and cardiac output.

RESULTS

In patients with a PCWP > 15 mm Hg (n = 10), cardiac output increased from 3.9 (1.5) to 4.5 (1.65) l/min (p < 0.01), despite a fall in PCWP from 24.7 (7.1) to 21.0 (6.2) mm Hg (p < 0.001). In patients with a PCWP < 15 mm Hg there was no change in PCWP or cardiac output. Combined data showed that PCWP decreased from 17.0 (9.1) to 15.3 (7.7) mm Hg during VDD-LV pacing (p < 0.014) and cardiac output increased non-significantly from 4.7 (1.5) to 4.9 (1.5) (p = 0.125).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CHF with a normal QRS duration and PCWP > 15 mm Hg derive acute haemodynamic benefit from VDD-LV pacing.

Cardiac resynchronization by pacing: an electrical treatment of heart failure

Various modalities of cardiac pacing have been proposed in the past to improve hemodynamics, either directly or indirectly. Some of these are conventional ways of cardiac stimulation, others such as biventricular or left ventricular pacing, represent dedicated pacing techniques. Left ventricular and biventricular pacing are successfully applied in those patients with congestive heart failure who have conduction disturbances (i.e. left bundle branch block) as they correct the ensuing intra- and interventricular dyssynchrony. This is the reason why these pacing modalities are described as cardiac resynchronization therapy. According to the results of a series of studies, the cardiac resynchronization therapy seems to have a favourable clinical impact in terms of quality of life, morbidity and hospitalization rate. On-going and future studies should assess the impact of resynchronization therapy on overall mortality and its cost-effectiveness profile in specific subgroups of patients. Other open issues regard (i) the convenience of using biventricular pacing as a pacing-alone therapy or in combination with ventricular defibrillation capability, especially for potential candidates to heart transplantation, and (ii) the ways to identify properly the responders to resynchronization therapy.

Left ventricular mechanics during right ventricular apical or left ventricular-based pacing in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation after atrioventricular junction ablation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate whether left ventricular (LV) mechanics are better under LV-based pacing than under right ventricular (RV) apical pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) after atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation.

BACKGROUND

"Ablate and pace" is an acceptable therapy for drug-refractory AF. However, the RV apical stimulation commonly used seems to interfere with the beneficial hemodynamic effect of regularization of heart rhythm.

METHODS

The study included 12 patients (5 men, mean age 62 +/- 8.3 years), 6 with impaired and 6 with normal LV systolic function. All of them had a biventricular pacemaker system implanted and underwent atrioventricular node ablation for drug-refractory chronic AF. Using a conductance catheter, we analyzed LV pressure-volume loops during routine coronary angiography in order to evaluate short-term changes in LV mechanics during RV apical and LV-based (LV free wall or biventricular) pacing.

RESULTS

Compared with RV pacing, LV-based pacing significantly improved the indexes of LV systolic function (i.e., end-systolic pressure and volume, cardiac index, stroke work, preload recruitable stroke work, maximal rate of rise of LV pressure [dP/dt(max)], LV ejection fraction, and end-systolic elastance). The LV diastolic filling indexes, end-diastolic pressure and volume, were better during LV-based pacing, whereas LV diastolic function indexes, -dP/dt(max), passive diastolic chamber stiffness, and time constant of LV isovolumic relaxation showed no clear change.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short term, LV-based pacing is superior to RV apical pacing in terms of contractile function and LV filling after AVJ ablation for drug-refractory AF.

Acute comparative effect of right and left ventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation

We tested the hypothesis that left ventricular (LV) pacing is superior to right ventricular (RV) apical pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation and pacing for permanent atrial fibrillation. The potential benefit of LV over RV pacing needs to be evaluated without the confounding effect of other variables that can influence cardiac performance. An acute intrapatient comparison of the QRS width and echocardiographic parameters between RV versus LV pacing was performed within 24 h after ablation in 44 patients. Both modes of pacing were also compared with pre-implantation values. Compared with RV pacing, LV pacing caused a 5.7% increase in the ejection fraction (EF) and a 16.7% decrease in the mitral regurgitation (MR) score; the QRS width was 4.8% shorter with LV pacing. Similar results were observed in patients with or without systolic dysfunction and/or native left bundle branch block, except for a greater improvement in MR in the latter group. Compared with pre-ablation measures, the EF increased by 11.2% and 17.6% with RV and LV pacing, respectively; the MR score decreased by 0% and 16.7%; and the diastolic filling time increased by 12.7% and 15.6%.Rhythm regularization achieved with AV junction ablation improved EF with both RV and LV pacing; LV pacing provided an additional modest but favorable hemodynamic effect, as reflected by a further increase of EF and reduction of MR. The effect seems to be equal in patients with both depressed and preserved systolic functions and in those with and without native left bundle branch block.

Endocardial versus epicardial electrical synchrony during LV free-wall pacing

Cardiac resynchronization therapy has been most typically achieved by biventricular stimulation. However, left ventricular (LV) free-wall pacing appears equally effective in acute and chronic clinical studies. Recent data suggest electrical synchrony measured epicardially is not required to yield effective mechanical synchronization, whereas endocardial mapping data suggest synchrony (fusion with intrinsic conduction) is important. To better understand this disparity, we simultaneously mapped both endocardial and epicardial electrical activation during LV free-wall pacing at varying atrioventricular delays (AV delay 0-150 ms) in six normal dogs with the use of a 64-electrode LV endocardial basket and a 128-electrode epicardial sock. The transition from dyssynchronous LV-paced activation to synchronous RA-paced activation was studied by constructing activation time maps for both endo- and epicardial surfaces as a function of increasing AV delay. The AV delay at the transition from dyssynchronous to synchronous activation was defined as the transition delay (AVt). AVt was variable among experiments, in the range of 44-93 ms on the epicardium and 47-105 ms on the endocardium. Differences in endo- and epicardial AVt were smaller (-17 to +12 ms) and not significant on average (-5.0 +/- 5.2 ms). In no instance was the transition to synchrony complete on one surface without substantial concurrent transition on the other surface. We conclude that both epicardial and endocardial synchrony due to fusion of native with ventricular stimulation occur nearly concurrently. Assessment of electrical epicardial delay, as often used clinically during cardiac resynchronization therapy lead placement, should provide adequate assessment of stimulation delay for inner wall layers as well.

Systolic improvement and mechanical resynchronization does not require electrical synchrony in the dilated failing heart with left bundle-branch block

BACKGROUND

Biventricular (BiV) and left ventricular (LV) pacing similarly augment systolic function in left bundle-branch block (LBBB)-failing hearts despite different electrical activation. We tested whether electrical synchrony is required to achieve mechanical synchronization and functional benefit from pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Epicardial mapping, tagged MRI, and hemodynamics were obtained in dogs with LBBB-failing hearts during right atrial, LV, and BiV stimulation. BiV and LV both significantly improved chamber hemodynamics (eg, 25% increase in dP/dt(max) and aortic pulse pressure) compared with atrial pacing-LBBB, and this improvement correlated with mechanical resynchronization. Electrical dispersion, however, decreased 13% with BiV but increased 23% with LV pacing (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Improved mechanical synchrony and function do not require electrical synchrony. Mechanical coordination plays the dominant role in global systolic improvement with either pacing approach.

Comparison of permanent left ventricular and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation: prospective haemodynamic study

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and haemodynamic variables between left ventricular and biventricular pacing in patients with severe heart failure; and to analyse haemodynamic changes during daily life and maximum exercise during chronic left ventricular and biventricular pacing.

DESIGN

Prospective single blinded randomised study with crossover.

SETTING

University hospital (tertiary referral centre).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

13 patients (mean (SD) age, 62 (6) years) with chronic atrial fibrillation, severe heart failure (mean ejection fraction 24 (8)%), and QRS prolongation of > or = 140 ms had His bundle ablation and installation of a pacemaker providing left ventricular and biventricular pacing. The pacemaker was equipped with a peak endocardial acceleration (PEA) sensor. The PEA pattern was used as a haemodynamic marker during exercise as it is highly correlated with left ventricular dP/dt. After a baseline period of right ventricular pacing, all patients had two months of left ventricular pacing and two months of biventricular pacing in random order. At the end of each phase, an echocardiogram, a haemodynamic analysis at rest and on exercise during a six minute walk test, and a cardiopulmonary exercise test were performed.

RESULTS

PEA values were higher with left ventricular pacing (0.58 (0.38) m/s) and biventricular pacing (0.62 (0.24) m/s) than at baseline (0.49 (0.18) m/s) (p < 0.05). The six minute walk test showed similar performance in both pacing modes, but patients had more symptoms with left ventricular pacing at the end of the test (p = 0.035). On cardiopulmonary exercise testing, there was a greater increase in mean percentage variation of PEA with biventricular pacing than with left ventricular pacing (125 (18)% v 97 (36)%, respectively; p = 0.048) and better performance figures (92 (34) W v 77 (23) W; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

During symptom limited and daily life exercise tests, chronic biventricular pacing provides better haemodynamic performance than left ventricular pacing. In heart failure patients with wide QRS complexes, the interventricular dyssynchronisation induced by left ventricular pacing may impair myocardial function during exercise.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in advanced heart failure the multicenter InSync clinical study

BACKGROUND

recent short-term observations have shown an improvement in cardiac function and heart failure symptoms from atrio-biventricular pacing. This study was designed to assess the safety and feasibility of an atrio-biventricular transvenous pacing system, and examine the long-term effects of cardiac resynchronization in patients with advanced heart failure and ventricular conduction abnormalities.

METHODS AND RESULTS

between August, 1997 and November, 1998, 103 patients received a cardiac resynchronization system (CRS) consisting of a pulse generator interfaced with an atrio-biventricular lead system, including a lead designed for left ventricular (LV) pacing via cardiac veins. Baseline evaluation included 12-lead electrocardiogram, estimation of New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, assessment of quality of life (QOL), and distance covered during a 6-min walk (6-MW). Detailed echocardiographic data were also collected in a subset of 46 patients. Measurements were repeated in all surviving patients at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after implantation of the CRS. A single, self-limiting procedure-related complication occurred. Over a follow-up of 12 months, 21 patients died. The 12-month actuarial survival was 78% (CI 70-87%). Nine surviving patients were withdrawn from the study during long-term follow-up for miscellaneous reasons. At each point of follow-up, a significant shortening of QRS duration was measured. In addition, significant improvements were observed in mean NYHA functional class, 6-MW and QOL score. In the 46 patients with complete echocardiographic data, LV ejection fraction increased from 21.7+/-6.4% at baseline to 26.1+/-9.0% at last follow-up (P = 0.006), LV end diastolic dimension decreased from 72.7+/-9.2 to 71.6+/-9.1 mm (P = 0.233), interventricular mechanical delay decreased from 27.5+/-32.1 to 20.3+/-25.5 ms (P = 0.243), mitral regurgitation apical four-chamber area decreased from 7.66+/-5.5 to 6.69+/-5.9 cm(2) (P = 0.197), and left ventricular filling time increased from 363+/-127 to 408+/-111 ms (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

long-term cardiac resynchronization can be safely and reliably achieved by transvenous atrial synchronized right and left ventricular pacing. These changes were accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in functional status and QOL, as well as a measurable increase in LV performance. The outcome of randomised controlled trials is awaited.

Cardiac resynchronization in patients with congestive heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation: effect of upgrading to biventricular pacing after chronic right ventricular pacing

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the effects of biventricular pacing (BVP) on ventricular function, functional status, quality of life and hospitalization in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), prior atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation and right ventricular (RV) pacing performed for chronic atrial fibrillation (AF).

BACKGROUND

Although the benefit of BVP in CHF should theoretically extend to the patient with chronic RV pacing and AF, to our knowledge, no study has determined the effects of BVP on symptoms and ventricular function in these patients. This patient population allows for the evaluation of ventricular resynchronization independent of any BVP-induced changes on the AV interval.

METHODS

Twenty consecutive patients with severe CHF (ejection fraction < or = 0.35, New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III or IV), prior AV junction ablation and RV pacing performed for permanent AF of at least six months' duration were studied. Electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, functional status evaluations and quality of life surveys were completed before and at three to six months after implant.

RESULTS

The NYHA functional classification improved 29% (p < 0.001). The left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction increased 44% (p < 0.001), the LV diastolic diameter decreased 6.5% (p <0.003) and the end-systolic diameter decreased 8.5% (p < 0.01). The number of hospitalizations decreased by 81% (p < 0.001). The scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure survey improved by 33% (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that BVP improves the LV function and the symptoms of CHF in patients with permanent AF and chronic RV pacing. These benefits are comparable to those described for patients in sinus rhythm suggesting that BVP acts through ventricular resynchronization rather than optimization of the AV delay.

Acute effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on left ventricular Doppler indices in patients with congestive heart failure

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure frequently exhibit intraventricular conduction delays, which contribute to asynchronous contraction patterns and impaired hemodynamic performance. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular (BV) and left ventricular (LV) pacing has been shown to improve both hemodynamic and clinical performance. This study investigated the effects of CRT on LV Doppler indices in these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-two patients with advanced heart failure (New York Heart Association class > or =III, QRS >120 milliseconds, PR interval >150 milliseconds) were studied 4 weeks after implantation of a CRT system. Doppler echocardiography was conducted in 3 separate CRT modes, right ventricular, LV, and BV stimulation at 3 different atrioventricular delays. CRT resulted in significant improvement of Doppler parameters such as filling time (FT, 313 +/- 111 milliseconds at baseline --> 363 +/- 154 milliseconds [BV], P <.05), aortic velocity time integral (AO(VTI) 23.2 +/- 7.4 cm at baseline --> 26.8 +/- 8.8 cm [LV], P <.05), and the myocardial performance index (MPI, 1.21 +/- 0.51 at baseline --> 0.85 +/- 0.34 [BV], P <.05). The most improvement was observed with LV and BV stimulation at short and intermediate atrioventricular delays (80-120 milliseconds), independent of ischemic or idiopathic origin.

CONCLUSIONS

CRT improves hemodynamic performance in patients with heart failure with intraventricular conduction delays. Doppler echocardiography allows noninvasive evaluation of acute CRT effects in patients with heart failure. In particular, FT, AO(VTI), and MPI are useful parameters for noninvasive follow-up and optimization of pacing parameters.

Long-term left ventricular pacing: assessment and comparison with biventricular pacing in patients with severe congestive heart failure

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to report prospectively the results of six-month follow-up of permanent left ventricular (LV) based pacing in patients with severe congestive heart failure (CHF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB).

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular pacing alone has been demonstrated to result in identical improvement compared to biventricular pacing (BiV) during acute hemodynamic evaluation in patients with advanced CHF and LBBB. However, to our knowledge, the clinical outcome during permanent LV pacing alone versus BiV pacing mode has not been evaluated.

METHODS

Pacing configuration (LV or BiV) was selected according to the physician's preference. Patient evaluation was performed at baseline and at six months.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients with advanced CHF and LBBB were included. Baseline characteristics of LV (18 patients) and BiV (15 patients) pacing groups were similar. During the six-month follow-up period, seven patients died three BiV and four LV). In the surviving patients at 6 months, 8 of 14 patients in the LV group and 9 of 12 in the BiV group were in New York Heart Association class I or II (p = 0.39). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of objective parameters except for LV end-diastolic diameter decrease (-4.4 mm in BiV group vs. -0.7 mm in LV group; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

At six-month follow-up, a trend toward improvement was observed in objective parameters in patients with severe CHF and LBBB following LV-based pacing. The two pacing modes (LV and BiV) were associated with almost equivalent improvement of subjective and objective parameters.

What is cardiac resynchronization therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization refers to pacing techniques that change the degree of atrial and ventricular electromechanical asynchrony in patients with major atrial and ventricular conduction disorders. Atrial and ventricular resynchronization is usually accomplished by pacing from more than one site in an electrical chamber--atrium or ventricle--and occasionally by stimulation at a single unconventional site. Resynchronization produces beneficial hemodynamic and antiarrhythmic effects by providing a more physiologic pattern of depolarization. Atrial resynchronization may prevent atrial fibrillation in selected patients with underlying bradycardia or interatrial block. Its antiarrhythmic effect in the absence of bradycardia is unclear. Ventricular resynchronization is of far greater clinical value than atrial resynchronization. Biventricular (or single-chamber left ventricular) pacing is beneficial for patients with congestive heart failure, severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, dilated cardiomyopathy (either ischemic or idiopathic), and a major left-sided intraventricular conduction disorder, such as left bundle branch block. The change in electrical activation from resynchronization, which has no positive inotropic effect as such, is translated into mechanical improvement with a more coordinated left ventricular contraction. Several recent randomized trials and a number of observational studies have demonstrated the long-term effectiveness of ventricular resynchronization in the above group of patients. The high incidence of sudden death among these patients has encouraged ongoing clinical trials to evaluate the benefit of a system that combines biventricular pacing and cardioversion-defibrillation into a single implantable device.