Left ventricular electrical delay predicts volumetric response to leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing is an emerging cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) technology. Predictors of response to leadless CRT are poorly understood. Implanting the LV endocardial pacing electrode in sites with increased electrical latency (Q-LV) may improve response rates.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the association between Q-LV and echocardiographic remodeling response to leadless CRT delivered with the WiSE-CRT system.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis (n = 122) of the SOLVE-CRT trial examined the relationship between LV pacing site Q-LV with rate of left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction >15% at 6 months. Multivariable regression analysis, adjusting for age, sex, previous CRT nonresponse, cardiomyopathy etiology, QRS morphology, and QRS duration was performed, followed by receiver operating characteristic analysis and analysis of variance by Q-LV quartile. A subgroup analysis of the ischemic cardiomyopathy cohort was undertaken.

RESULTS

Complete Q-LV data were available for 122 of 153 patients (80%) in the active arms SOLVE-CRT. Overall, the 6-month LVESV response rate was 46%. Logistic regression identified Q-LV as an independent response predictor with borderline significance (adjusted odds ratio 1.015; P = .05). Analysis by Q-LV quartile demonstrated a significant improvement in response rate in quartile 4 (longest Q-LV 64%) compared to quartile 1 (shortest Q-LV 28%) (P <.01). This association was primarily driven by strong Q-LV-response correlation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, demonstrated by subgroup logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio 1.034; P = .004).

CONCLUSION

Increased Q-LV was associated with improved reverse remodeling following leadless CRT. Targeting LV endocardial sites of high Q-LV may deliver additional benefit compared to empirical LV electrode implantation.

Recent Advances in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Current Treatment and Future Direction

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) has been established as a major component of heart failure management, resulting in a significant reduction in patient morbidity and death for patients with increased QRS duration, low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and high risk of arrhythmias. The ability to synchronize both ventricles, lower heart failure hospitalizations, and optimize clinical outcomes are some of the attractive characteristics of biventricular pacing, or CRT. However, the high rate of CRT non-responders has led to the development of new modalities including leadless CRT pacemakers (CRT-P) and devices focused on conduction system pacing (CSP). This comprehensive review aims to present recent findings from CRT clinical trials and systematic reviews that have been published that will likely guide future directions in patient care.

Left bundle branch area pacing versus endocardial resynchronization in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and endocardial resynchronization (Endo-CRT) are alternatives to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of LBBAP versus Endo-CRT using conventional pacing leads.

METHODS

Patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing CRT with LBBAP or Endo-CRT were included. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of HF-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any procedure-related complication. Secondary outcomes included procedural characteristics, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 223 patients (LBBAP n = 197, Endo-CRT n = 26; mean age 69 ± 10.3 years, 32.3% female) were included. Patients in the LBBAP group had lower NYHA class, shorter preprocedural QRS durations (161 [142-183] vs. 180 [170-203] msec, p < .001), and a lower preprocedural spironolactone use (57.4% vs. 84.6%, p = .009) than patients in the Endo-CRT group. Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in patients undergoing LBBAP (11.4 [7.2-20] vs. 23 [14.2-34.5] min; p < .001). There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy outcome between both groups (Cox proportional HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.635-2.31; p = .56). During follow-up, patients undergoing LBBAP had a lower incidence of stroke than patients in the Endo-CRT group (0% vs. 11.5%, p = .001). Postprocedural LVEF (35% [25-45] vs. 40% [20-55]; p = .307) and change in LVEF (7% [0-20] vs. 11% [2-18]; p = .384) were similar between the LBBAP and the Endo-CRT groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP and Endo-CRT using conventional leads are associated with similar mortality and HF-related hospitalization, as well as improvements in LVEF. Endo-CRT is associated with longer fluoroscopy times and a higher risk of stroke.

Observational Study of Trans-Septal Endocardial Left Ventricle Lead Implant for Effective Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure and Challenging Coronary Sinus Anatomy

BACKGROUND

When conventional trans-venous CS lead placement fails, trans-septal endocardial left ventricle lead placement is an alternative technique used to capture the left ventricle endocardially; however, its use is limited due to a lack of evidence, practice uptake, and clinical trials.

METHODS

In this single-center cohort study, we evaluated the efficiency of the procedure, post-procedural complication rate, rate of thromboembolic events, overall survival rate, and changes in the echocardiographic parameters, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, both before and after TSLV lead implantation.

RESULTS

The TSLV lead implant is safe and improves EF, LVEDV, LVESV, and LVIDd. It significantly reduces the NTproBNP levels and the NYHA class; however, the rate of stroke incidence remains high, at 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated a high success rate of trans-septal left ventricular endocardial lead implantation, LV reverse remodeling was noted, and patients had a favorable clinical response; however, there was an increased risk of systemic embolization after the trans-septal LV lead implant.

Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing

Cardiac pacing to treat bradyarrhythmias has evolved in recent decades. Recognition that a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients can develop heart failure due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from traditional right ventricular apical pacing has led to development of more physiologic pacing methods that better mimic normal cardiac conduction and provide synchronized ventricular contraction. Conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease but can be limited by scarring and fibrosis. His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing are novel techniques that can provide more physiologic ventricular activation as an alternative to conventional or biventricular pacing. Leadless pacing has emerged as another alternative pacing technique to overcome limitations in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Our objective is to review the evolution of cardiac pacing and explore these new advances in pacing strategies.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: present and future

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. Despite the long-standing clinical evidence, as well as the familiarity of cardiac electrophysiologists with the implantation technique, CRT via BVP cannot be achieved or may result ineffective in up to one-third of the patients. Therefore, new alternative techniques, such as conduction system pacing and left ventricular pacing, are emerging as potential alternatives to this technique, not only in case of BVP failure, but also as a stand-alone first choice due to several potential advantages over traditional CRT. Specifically, due to its procedural characteristics, left bundle branch area pacing appears to be the most convincing technique, showing comparable efficacy outcomes when compared with traditional CRT, not increasing short-term device-related complications, as well as improving procedural times. However, transvenous leads remain a major limitation of all these pacing modalities. To overcome this limit, a leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing has been developed as an additional tool to achieve a left endocardial activation, although being still associated with non-negligible pitfalls, limiting its current use in clinical practice. This article focuses on the current state and latest progresses in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

What Have We Learned in the Last 20 Years About CRT Non-Responders?

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become well established in the treatment of heart failure, the management of patients who do not respond after CRT remains a key challenge. This review will summarize what we have learned about non-responders over the last 20 years and discuss methods for optimizing response, including the introduction of novel therapies.

A systemic review of endocardial left ventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Endocardial left ventricular pacing is an alternative technique used in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), when placement of a left ventricular lead is not possible via the coronary sinus or in non-responders to conventional CRT.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of endocardial left ventricular pacing.

METHODS

Systematic research on Medline (PubMed), ClinicalTrials.gov and Embase with the terms "endocardial left ventricular pacing", "biventricular pacing" or "endocardial left pacing" was performed with the identification of 1038 results. Eleven studies with endocardial left ventricular pacing patients were included, independent of the technique being applied to naïve CRT patients or con non-responders to conventional CRT. The end-point of this analysis was the impact of endocardial left ventricular pacing techniques regarding New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and QRS width, and the occurrence of complications Mean differences (MD) and confidence interval (CI) was used as a measurement of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 560 patients were included, with different techniques used (trans-atrial septal technique, trans-ventricular septal technique and transapical technique). Significant improvement was registered in NYHA class (MD 0.73, CI 0.48-0.98, p<0.00001, I2 = 87%), LVEF (MD -7.63, CI -9.93 - -5.33, p<0.00001, I2 = 69%) and QRS width (MD 29.25, CI 9.99-48.50, p<0.00001, I2 = 91%). Several complications were reported after the procedure, 11 pocket infections, 22 transient ischemic attacks, 18 ischemic strokes, 41 thromboembolic events, among other complications. The mortality rate during the follow-up was 20.54%.

CONCLUSION

Left ventricular endocardial pacing is a feasible alternative to conventional CRT, with clinical, electrocardiographic and echocardiogrphic improvement. However, first data regarding this procedure was associated with significant complications rates.

Endocardial left ventricular pacing

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure; however, 30–50% of patients fail to improve after implant. Endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing is an alternative therapy for patients who do not respond to conventional CRT or in whom placement of a lead via the coronary sinus is not possible. It enables pacing at a wide variety of sites, without restrictions due to coronary sinus anatomy, and there is evidence of superior electrical resynchronization and hemodynamic response compared with conventional epicardial CRT. In this article, we discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of endocardial LV pacing compared with conventional CRT, review the evidence for the delivery of endocardial LV pacing using both lead-based and leadless systems, and explore possible future directions of this novel technology.

Three-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Comparison of a restrictive versus a liberal strategy for pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND

Conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are common, heterogeneous, and frequently result in permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). Pacemaker therapy with a high rate of right ventricular pacing is associated with heart failure, hospitalizations, and reduced quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare medium-term outcomes between PPI implantation strategies, as choosing the right indication for PPI is still an area of uncertainty and information on outcomes of PPI regimens beyond 1 year is rare.

METHODS

We compared outcomes after 3 years between a restrictive PPI strategy, in which the lowest threshold for PPI was left bundle branch block (LBBB) (QRS >120 ms) with the presence of new atrioventricular block (PQ >200 ms), and a liberal PPI regimen, in which PPI already was performed in patients with new-onset LBBB.

RESULTS

Between January 2014 and December 2016, TAVI was performed in 884 patients at our center. Of these, 383 consecutive, pacemaker-naive patients underwent TAVI with the liberal PPI strategy and subsequently 384 with the restrictive strategy. The restrictive strategy significantly reduced the percentage of patients undergoing PPI before discharge (17.2% vs 38.1%; P <.001). The incidence of the primary endpoint (all-cause-mortality and hospitalization for heart failure) after 3 years was similar in both groups (30.7% vs 35.2%; P = .242), as was all-cause-mortality (26.6% vs 29.2%; P = .718). Overall, patients who required PPI post-TAVI had significantly more hospitalizations due to heart failure (14.8% vs 7.8%; P = .004).

CONCLUSION

A restrictive PPI strategy after TAVI reduces PPI significantly and is safe in medium-term follow-up over 3 years.

Leadless left ventricular stimulation with WiSE-CRT System - Initial experience and results from phase I of SOLVE-CRT Study (nonrandomized, roll-in phase)

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing is a promising method to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). WiSE-CRT is a wireless LV endocardial pacing system, and delivers ultrasonic energy to an LV electrode.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to present short-term outcomes with the WiSE-CRT system in centers with no prior implanting experience.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected from 19 centers where WiSE-CRT systems were implanted during the roll-in phase of the SOLVE-CRT trial. Patients were followed at 1, 3, and 6 months, including transthoracic echo (TTE) at 6 months.

RESULTS

The WiSE-CRT was successfully implanted in all 31 attempted cases, and 30 patients completed the 6-month follow-up. One patient underwent heart transplantation 1 month after implantation, and was excluded. Fourteen (46.7%) patients demonstrated ≥1 NYHA class improvement. TTE data were available in 29 patients. LV ejection fraction, LV end-systolic volume, and LV end-diastolic volume improved from 28.3% ± 6.7% to 33.5% ± 6.9% (P < .001), 134.9 ± 51.3 mL to 111.1 ± 40.3 mL (P = .0004), and 185.4 ± 58.8 mL to 164.9 ± 50.6 mL (P = .0017), respectively. There were 3 (9.7%) device-related type 1 complications: 1 insufficient LV pacing, 1 embolization of an unanchored LV electrode, and 1 skin infection.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated a high success rate of LV endocardial electrode placement in centers with no prior implanting experience. Favorable clinical responses in heart failure symptoms and significant LV reverse remodeling were noted.

Three-dimensional echocardiography definitively delineates a malpositioned permanent pacing lead in a patient with chronic chest pain

Inadvertent malpositioning of a cardiac pacing lead into the left heart chambers is a rare complication of transvenous pacing. We report a patient with a history of a transient ischemic attack and chronic chest pain whose left atrial pacing lead location was revealed by transesophageal three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography during evaluation of an inter-atrial shunt.

Leadless Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy is an important intervention to reduce mortality and morbidity, but even in carefully selected patients approximately 30% fail to improve. This has led to alternative pacing approaches to improve patient outcomes. Left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing allows pacing at site-specific locations that enable the operator to avoid myocardial scar and target areas of latest activation. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) provides a more physiological activation pattern and may allow effective cardiac resynchronisation. This article discusses LV endocardial pacing in detail, including the indications, techniques and outcomes. It discusses LBBAP, its potential benefits over His bundle pacing and procedural outcomes. Finally, it concludes with the future role of endocardial pacing and LBBAP in heart failure patients.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with intraoperative epicardial mapping via minithoracotomy: 10 years' experience

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is considered an efficient method to improve the left ventricular (LV) dysfunction with left bundle branch block. However, coronary venous anatomy is not appropriate in about 10% of the cases; thus other alternatives, such as epicardial lead implantation via minithoracotomy are needed.

METHODS

During the period 2007-2017, a total of 57 patients were operated at our institute via left anterior minithoracotomy after an unsuccessful transvenous CRT. The best position of the LV epicardial electrode was determined by intraoperative epicardial mapping, that is locating the latest activation spot relative to the right ventricular (RV) electrode. The authors analyzed the survival by Kaplan-Meier estimator with Tarone-Ware equality test and multiple Cox regression analysis, the changes of the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and dimensions, the development of the impedance and threshold of the LV epicardial electrode, the possible associations between the survival and intraoperative sensed RV-LV activation delay.

RESULTS

The intraoperative RV-LV activation delay was 92.250 ± 26.538 milliseconds. There were no intraoperative complications except ventricular fibrillation in three patients. Within 30 days there were neither wound healing complications nor pocket hematoma. There was no significant difference in survival with regard to gender or etiology, but significantly better survival was found in the cohort with intraoperative sensed RV-LV activation delay >86 milliseconds. The LVEF and dimensions improved following the operation and continued to be improved in the survivors.

CONCLUSION

CRT via minithoracotomy with epicardial mapping is a safe, efficient, simple, and reproducible second-line alternative to the transvenous method.

Caudocranial transseptal approach for placement of endocardial left ventricular leads

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with improvement in the quality of life, hospitalization rates, and mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and evidence of the right ventricle-left ventricle (RV-LV) desynchrony. Implant failure rates and patient outcomes have improved with the advent of quadripolar leads, yet alternatives to traditional coronary sinus (CS) LV lead placement is sought for in a subset of advanced heart failure patients with difficult CS anatomy, phrenic nerve stimulation or in nonresponders. Endocardial left ventricular pacing (EnLVP) in chronically anticoagulated patients has been reported as an alternative using different approaches, techniques, and tools with acceptable short and long term adverse events. We present a case of successful EnLVP achieved for CRT using standard techniques and commonly available tools in a patient on chronic direct oral anticoagulation with recurrent heart failure admissions who failed traditional epicardial LV pacing.

Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing in nonresponders to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Endocardial pacing may be beneficial in patients who fail to improve following conventional epicardial cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The potential to pace anywhere inside the left ventricle thus avoiding myocardial scar and targeting the latest activating segments may be particularly important. The WiSE-CRT system (EBR systems, Sunnyvale, CA) reliably produces wireless, endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether this system improved symptoms or led to LV remodeling in patients who were nonresponders to conventional CRT.

METHOD

An international, multicenter registry of patients who were nonresponders to conventional CRT and underwent implantation with the WiSE-CRT system was collected.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were included; 20 patients underwent successful implantation with confirmation of endocardial biventricular pacing and in 2 patients, there was a failure of electrode capture. Eighteen patients proceeded to 6-month follow-up; endocardial pacing resulted in a significant reduction in QRS duration compared with intrinsic QRS duration (26.6 ± 24.4 ms; P = .002) and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (4.7 ± 7.9%; P = .021). The mean reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic volume was 8.3 ± 42.3 cm³ (P = .458) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) was 13.1 ± 44.3 cm³ (P = .271), which were statistically nonsignificant. Overall, 55.6% of patients had improvement in their clinical composite score and 66.7% had a reduction in LVESV ≥15% and/or absolute improvement in LVEF ≥5%.

CONCLUSION

Nonresponders to conventional CRT have few remaining treatment options. We have shown in this high-risk patient group that the WiSE-CRT system results in improvement in their clinical composite scores and leads to LV remodeling.

A Novel Quadripolar Active Fixation Left-Ventricular Pacing Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Initial United Kingdom Experience

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess immediate and short-term performance of the Medtronic Attain Stability Quadripolar 4798 lead (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland).

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for appropriately selected patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. The most common reason for failure to implant a lead is the lack of a suitable epicardial vein, due either to an absent vessel in the target site, an unacceptably high threshold, lead instability, phrenic nerve stimulation, or a combination of reasons. In August 2017, a novel quadripolar active fixation LV lead (Medtronic) was released. This paper reports the initial clinical experience with lead implantation and specifically immediate and short-term pacing parameters across 3 United Kingdom centers.

METHODS

Consecutive patients eligible for CRT were deemed suitable for this lead. Immediate and short-term lead performance data regarding LV threshold, impedance, and displacement rates were collected at standard pacing checks (1 day, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 9 months post-implantation).

RESULTS

CRT using this lead was attempted in 82 cases and was successful in 81 cases (98.8%). LV thresholds and impedance levels were 1.22 ± 0.75 V and 737 ± 319 Ω at implantation; 1.16 ± 0.71 V and 597 ± 218 Ω at day 1; 1.02 ± 0.48 V and 579 ± 148 Ω at week 6; 0.98 ± 0.49 V and 569 ± 133 Ω at 3 months; and 1.06 ± 0.48 V and 570 ± 140 Ω at 9 months. As of the publication of this paper, no LV lead has been displaced.

CONCLUSIONS

CRT using the Medtronic lead was successful in more than 98% of the patients. Short-to-medium-term data regarding lead performance and stability were excellent, with zero displacements as of the publication of this paper.

Multicenter prospective observational long-term follow-up study of endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy using the Jurdham procedure

BACKGROUND

Endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy (eCRT) avoids the limitations and failures of coronary sinus (CS) resynchronization. However, data regarding long-term outcomes are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to report the long-term outcome of eCRT performed using the Jurdham procedure in a real-world setting.

METHODS

eCRT was performed in patients who failed a CS implant or failed to respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), or in selected patients requiring lifelong oral anticoagulation (OAC). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA FC), and left ventricular stimulation parameters were assessed during long-term follow-up (FU).

RESULTS

From August 2009 to March 2018, the Jurdham procedure was performed in 88 patients at 15 centers in 8 countries, with FU of 32.88 ± 61.52 months (range 0-88 months; 196 patient-years). NYHA FC improved from 2.9 preimplant to 1.3 during FU. LVEF increased <10 percentage points from baseline in 7% of patients, between 10 and 20 percentage points in 11% of patients, and >20 percentage points in 82% of patients. All-cause mortality at 60 months was 30.5%. Three transient ischemic attacks (1.53 per 100 patient-years) and 6 strokes (3.06 per 100 patient-years) occurred. Of the 6 patients with stroke, 4 (66%) had almost complete recovery.

CONCLUSION

eCRT using the Jurdham procedure is an effective and safe technique in anticoagulated patients. This approach may be an attractive option for patients with failed CS implants or nonresponders to CS CRT. In addition, it might be a reasonable approach as a first option for treatment of patients requiring lifelong OAC.

His-bundle Pacing to Left Bundle Branch Pacing: Evolution of His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing

His-bundle pacing (HBP) constitutes an excellent alternative to right ventricular pacing. Recently, several studies have reported on the success and efficacy of HBP in patients with left bundle branch block requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. Nonetheless, HBP may not always be feasible due to high capture thresholds or disease in the distal His bundle. The present report discusses the utility and feasibility of pacing in the left bundle branch area located distal to the site of conduction block.

Alternative left ventricular pacing approaches for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves mortality, morbidity, and quality of life in selected heart failure patients with severe left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction impairment. However, between 20% and 40% of device recipients do not benefit clinically from CRT. Indeed, some anatomic and technical difficulties are related to the coronary venous implantation site via the coronary sinus (CS). Additionally, electrical constraints have been described, and CS does not always correspond to the optimal LV lead position. In the last decade, engineers and physicians have worked together to overcome the challenging LV lead implantation, and various biventricular pacing alternatives have been developed to improve CRT response. In this review, we discuss the evolution from CS pacing to wireless LV stimulation and His-bundle pacing.

Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing/Leadless Pacing

Several clinical trials have established the role of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure, impaired left ventricular function and dyssynchrony. Challenges to traditional therapy include coronary sinus anatomy and failure to respond. Left ventricular endocardial pacing could overcome anatomic constraints, provide more flexibility, and allow for more physiologic activation. Cases and case series have demonstrated the promise of the approach. Preclinical studies support the superior hemodynamic effects of left ventricular endocardial pacing. Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing is a recent innovation that is undergoing prospective testing. Successful delivery may be associated with clinical response and positive cardiac structural remodeling.

Understanding non-response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy: common problems and potential solutions

Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome associated with a significant morbidity and mortality burden. Reductions in left ventricular (LV) function trigger adaptive mechanisms, leading to structural changes within the LV and the potential development of dyssynchronous ventricular activation. This is the substrate targeted during cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT); however, around 30-50% of patients do not experience benefit from this treatment. Non-response occurs as a result of pre-implant, peri-implant and post implant factors but the technical constraints of traditional, transvenous epicardial CRT mean they can be challenging to overcome. In an effort to improve response, novel alternative methods of CRT delivery have been developed and of these endocardial pacing, where the LV is stimulated from inside the LV cavity, appears the most promising.

Left ventricular endocardial pacing in the real world: Five years of experience at a single center

BACKGROUND

A left ventricular (LV) endocardial lead implant to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is feasible when a conventional implant failed due to anatomical or technical issues or when the venous implant was performed but the patient did not respond to the therapy.

METHODS

Data about the implantation procedure (age, sex, clinical characteristics, anticoagulant use, and previous devices), patient characteristics (indication, technique used, lead model, complications), and follow-up (clinical and echocardiographic outcome, LV lead electrical measurements) were analyzed for all CRT systems implanted using LV endocardial lead, due to failed conventional implant or nonresponse, between April 2011 and November 2016.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were implanted with an active fixation LV endocardial lead during the study period, without significant complications. There were no dislodgements or severe complications related to the implant procedure in the follow-up period (36 ± 20 months) and a high percentage of patients responded to therapy, as assessed by several indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

An LV endocardial lead implant was feasible when the conventional technique had previously failed or was not effective. A high rate of response was achieved without any significant complications.

Thrombo-embolic events in left ventricular endocardial pacing: long-term outcomes from a multicentre UK registry

Aims

Endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing is a viable alternative in patients with failed coronary sinus (CS) lead implantation. However, long-term thrombo-embolic risk remains unknown. Much of the data have come from a small number of centres. We examined the safety and efficacy of endocardial LV pacing to determine the long-term thrombo-embolic risk.

Methods and results

Registries from four UK centres were combined to include 68 patients with endocardial leads with a mean follow-up of 20 months. These were compared to a matched 1:2 control group with conventional CS leads. Medical records were reviewed, and patients contacted for follow-up. Ischaemic stroke occurred in four patients (6%) in the endocardial arm providing an annual event rate (AER) of 3.6% over a 20 month follow-up; compared to 9 patients (6.6%) amongst controls with an AER of 3.4% over a 23-month follow-up. Regression analyses showed a significant association between sub-therapeutic international normalized ratio and stroke (P = 0.0001) in the endocardial arm. There was no association between lead material and mode of delivery (transatrial/transventricular) and stroke. Mortality rate was 12 and 15 per 100 patient years in the endocardial and control arm respectively with end-stage heart failure being the commonest cause.

Conclusion

Endocardial LV lead in heart failure patients has a good success rate at 1.6 year follow-up. However, it is associated with a thrombo-embolic risk (which is not different from conventional CS leads) attributable to sub-therapeutic anticoagulation. Randomized control trials and studies on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are required to ascertain the potential of widespread clinical application of this therapeutic modality.

Complications associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrades versus de novo implantations

INTRODUCTION

A significant number of patients undergo upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). These patients tend to differ from individuals undergoing de novo CRT implantations both in terms of their baseline demographics and the etiology underlying their heart failure. Areas covered: There are several factors that need to be considered when upgrading patients to CRT, such as, venous patency. Potentially, these conditions can cause issues which may result in procedures being more difficult than de novo implantations. This article discusses these issues and compares the rates of procedural-related complications for CRT upgrades and de novo implantations. It discusses the proportion of patients that are likely to respond to CRT with each intervention. Expert commentary: Understanding the relative risks of CRT upgrades versus de novo implantations is important to help operators select the correct initial device and counsel patients accordingly. Growing experience with image-guided implantations and endocardial pacing may prove to be particularly relevant to patients undergoing CRT upgrades.

Cardiac resynchronization is pro-arrhythmic in the absence of reverse ventricular remodelling: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to reduce mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization but its effects on the rate of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) appears to be neutral. We hypothesize that CRT with LV epicardial stimulation is inherently pro-arrhythmic and increases VA rates in the absence of reverse ventricular remodelling while conferring an anti-arrhythmic effect in mechanical responders.

Methods and results

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we considered retrospective cohort, prospective cohort, and randomized controlled trials comparing VA rates between cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) non-responders, CRT-D responders and those with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) only. Studies were eligible if they defined CRT-D responders using a discrete left ventricular volumetric value as assessed by any imaging modality. Studies were identified through searching electronic databases from their inception to July 2017. We identified 2579 citations, of which 23 full-text articles were eligible for final analysis. Our results demonstrated that CRT-D responders were less likely to experience VA than CRT-D non-responders, relative risk (RR) 0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.58, P < 0.01] and also less than patients with ICD only: RR 0.59 (95% CI 0.50-0.69, P < 0.01). However, CRT-D mechanical non-responders had a greater likelihood of VA compared with ICD only, RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.92, P = 0.004).

Conclusion

CRT-D non-responders experienced more VA than CRT-D responders and also more than those with ICD only, suggesting that CRT with LV epicardial stimulation may be inherently pro-arrhythmic in the absence of reverse remodelling.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of left ventricular endocardial pacing in advanced heart failure: Clinically efficacious but at what cost?

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization using a left ventricular (LV) epicardial lead placed in the coronary sinus is now routinely used in the management of heart failure patients. LV endocardial pacing is an alternative when this is not feasible, with outcomes data sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of endocardial LV pacing via meta-analysis.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and COCHRANE databases with the search term "endocardial biventricular pacing" or "endocardial cardiac resynchronization" or "left ventricular endocardial" or "endocardial left ventricular." Comparisons of pre-and post-QRS width, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification was performed, and mean differences (and respective 95% confidence interval [CI]) applied as a measurement of treatment effect.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, including 362 patients, were selected. During a mean follow-up of 40 ± 24.5 months, death occurred in 72 patients (11 per 100 patient-years). Significant improvements in LVEF (mean difference 7.9%, 95% CI 5-10%, P < 0.0001; I²  = 73%), QRS width (mean difference: -41% 95% -75 to -7%; P < 0.0001; I²  = 94%), and NYHA class (mean difference: -1.06, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.9, P < 0.0001; I²  = 60%), (all P < 0.0001) occurred. Stroke rate was 3.3-4.2 per 100 patient-years, which is higher than equivalent heart failure trial populations and recent meta-analysis that included small case series.

CONCLUSION

LV endocardial lead implantation is a potentially efficacious alternative to CS lead placement, but preliminary data suggest a potentially higher risk of stroke during follow-up when compared to the expected incidence of stroke in similar cohorts of patients.

Technology Advances to Improve Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: What Clinicians Should Know

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, prolonged QRS duration, and abnormal QRS morphology. The ultimate goals of modern CRT are to improve the proportion of patients responding to CRT and to maximize the response to CRT in patients who do respond. While the rate of CRT nonresponders has moderately but progressively decreased over the last 20 years, mostly in patients with left bundle branch block, in patients without left bundle branch block the response rate is almost unchanged. A number of technological advances have already contributed to achieve some of the objectives of modern CRT. They include novel lead design (the left ventricular quadripolar lead, and multipoint pacing), or the possibility to go beyond conventional delivery of CRT (left ventricular endocardial pacing, His bundle pacing). Furthermore, to improve CRT response, a triad of actions is paramount: reducing the burden of atrial fibrillation, reducing the number of appropriate and inappropriate interventions, and adequately predicting heart failure episodes. As in other fields of cardiology, technology and innovations for CRT delivery have been at the forefront in transforming-improving-patient care; therefore, these innovations are discussed in this review.