Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Is Atrial Lead Implantation Necessary?

Cardiac Resynchronization in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs in one of four patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).-Without special therapy, the prognosis of AF patients with CRT has been generally worse than those in sinus rhythm. The importance of a high percentage of biventricular pacing (BIV%) was confirmed in a large study where the mortality was inversely associated with BIV% both in the presence of normal sinus and atrial paced rhythm and with AF. The greatest reduction in mortality was observed with BIV% >98%. Patients with BIV% >99.6% experienced a 24% reduction in mortality (p < 0.001) while those with BIV% <94.8% had a 19% increase in mortality. The optimal BIV% cut-point was 98.7%. This cutoff would appear mandatory but it would be best to approach 100%. Careful evaluation of device interrogation data upon which the BiV% is based is essential because the memorized data can vastly overestimate the percentage of truly resynchronized beats since it does not account for fusion and pseudofusion between intrinsic (not paced) and paced beats. The recently published randomized CERTIFY trial provides unequivocal proof of the value of AV junctional (AVJ) ablation in CRT patients with AF. This trial confirmed the favorable results of AVJ ablation by many other studies and two important meta-analyses and therefore established the firm recommendation that the procedure should be performed in most, if not all, patients with permanent AF as well as those with frequent and prolonged episodes of paroxysmal AF. Patients after AVJ have improved mortality with a mortality similar to those in sinus rhythm. The AVJ ablation procedure carries the theoretical risk of device failure and death in pacemaker dependent patients. An inappropriate first ICD shock for AF seems to increase mortality. Increased long-term mortality after an inappropriate shock may be due to the underlying atrial arrhythmia substrate as opposed to the effect of the shock itself.

The changing landscape of cardiac pacing

A number of trials have shown that irrespective of baseline QRS duration, left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and heart failure are more common in patients with right ventricular (RV) than in those with biventricular (BiV) pacing. By contrast, preliminary results of the BIOPACE trial (follow-up 5.6 years) yielded a disappointing comparison of RV vs. BiV pacing. Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PIC) may occur in patients with normal and abnormal LV ejection fractions (LVEF) and tends to occur if there is RV pacing more than 40 % of the time. Yet, some pacemaker-dependent patients do not develop LV dysfunction. PIC can be improved in about two thirds of patients by upgrading to a BiV system and the results are comparable to de novo BiV pacing in patients with a wide QRS complex. The findings of the BLOCK HF trial (2013) suggested that patients requiring pacing virtually 100 % of the time might benefit from BiV pacing irrespective of the LVEF (< 50 %), manifestations of heart failure, QRS duration, or functional class. These characteristics would generate many patients for BiV pacing. However, these recommendations should now be weighed against a more conservative approach based on the recently announced results of the BIOPACE trial. Organizational guidelines recommend BiV pacing for bradycardia irrespective of QRS duration for patients with LVEF < 35 %. At this time, BiV pacing for antibradycardia therapy (irrespective of QRS duration) has to be individualized in the setting of a normal or decreased LVEF (> 35 %) and according to the expected percentage of RV pacing. The benefit of BiV pacing should be considered against procedural complications, which are more frequent than with traditional RV pacing.

Feasibility and efficacy of electrical cardioversion after cardiac resynchronization implantation in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE

Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may spontaneously recover sinus rhythm during follow-up. We tested the feasibility and efficacy of electrical cardioversion attempted after 3 months of CRT in patients with permanent AF and measured the long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm.

METHODS

Twenty-eight consecutive patients with permanent AF in whom CRT defibrillators had been implanted were scheduled for internal electrical cardioversion after 3 months (group A) and were compared with a control group of 27 patients (group B).

RESULTS

In group A, 22 patients (79 %) were eligible for cardioversion; sinus rhythm was restored in 18 (82 %) of these, with no procedural complications. After 12 months, 16 patients (58 %) in group A were in sinus rhythm, compared with one group B patient who spontaneously recovered sinus rhythm (4 %, p < 0.001). On 12-month evaluation, ejection fraction had improved in both groups, but a reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume was recorded only in group A patients (p = 0.018 versus baseline).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with permanent AF, the rhythm control strategy consisting of internal cardioversion, performed by means of the implanted cardioverter-defibrillator after 3 months of CRT, was associated with a high rate of sinus rhythm resumption on long-term follow-up and with a better echocardiographic response to CRT than that seen in patients treated according to a rate control strategy.