MULTISITE LEFT VENTRICULAR PACING IMPROVES ACUTE MECHANICAL DYSSYNCHRONY IN HEART FAILURE PATIENTS

Computational Modeling for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF) patients with an electrical substrate pathology causing ventricular dyssynchrony. However 40-50% of patients do not respond to treatment. Cardiac modeling of the electrophysiology, electromechanics, and hemodynamics of the heart has been used to study mechanisms behind HF pathology and CRT response. Recently, multi-scale dyssynchronous HF models have been used to study optimal device settings and optimal lead locations, investigate the underlying cardiac pathophysiology, as well as investigate emerging technologies proposed to treat cardiac dyssynchrony. However the breadth of patient and experimental data required to create and parameterize these models and the computational resources required currently limits the use of these models to small patient numbers. In the future, once these technical challenges are overcome, biophysically based models of the heart have the potential to become a clinical tool to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of HF.

Biophysical Modeling to Determine the Optimization of Left Ventricular Pacing Site and AV/VV Delays in the Acute and Chronic Phase of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Cardiac anatomy and function adapt in response to chronic cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The effects of these changes on the optimal left ventricle (LV) lead location and timing delay settings have yet to be fully explored.

OBJECTIVE

To predict the effects of chronic CRT on the optimal LV lead location and device timing settings over time.

METHODS

Biophysical computational cardiac models were generated for 3 patients, immediately post-implant (ACUTE) and after at least 6 months of CRT (CHRONIC). Optimal LV pacing area and device settings were predicted by pacing the ACUTE and CHRONIC models across the LV epicardium (49 sites each) with a range of 9 pacing settings and simulating the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of the heart.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between the distribution of the AHR in the ACUTE and CHRONIC models (P < 0.0005 in all cases). The site delivering the maximal AHR shifted location between the ACUTE and CHRONIC models but provided a negligible improvement (<2%). The majority of the acute optimal LV pacing regions (76-100%) and device settings (76-91%) remained optimal chronically.

CONCLUSION

Optimization of the LV pacing location and device settings were important at the time of implant, with a reduced benefit over time, where the majority of the acute optimal LV pacing region and device settings remained optimal with chronic CRT.