Impact of multipoint pacing on projected battery longevity in cardiac resynchronization therapy. An IRON-MPP study sub-analysis.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices
Defibrillators, Implantable
Electric Countershock
/ instrumentation
Electric Power Supplies
Equipment Failure
Female
Heart Failure
/ diagnosis
Humans
Italy
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Registries
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Ventricular Function, Left
battery longevity
cardiac resynchronization therapy
heart failure
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
multipoint pacing
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
received:
20
07
2019
revised:
11
10
2019
accepted:
25
10
2019
pubmed:
30
10
2019
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
30
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Multipoint pacing (MPP) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D), but its impact on battery longevity in a real-world population has not been investigated in large trials. Compare projected battery longevity in CRT-D patients with and without MPP during long-term follow-up. The Italian registry on multipoint left ventricular pacing (IRON-MPP) is a prospective, multicenter registry of patients implanted with MPP-capable CRT-D devices. Projected battery longevity during follow-up was compared for patients with MPP (MPP ON) vs single-site (MPP OFF) left ventricular pacing at CRT-D implantation. A sub-analysis excluded crossover patients with MPP activation or deactivation occurring after implantation. A second sub-analysis excluded patients with a right or left ventricular pacing amplitude >2.5 V. Out of 237 CRT-D patients (71 ± 9 years, 81% male) followed for 1.9 ± 0.8 years, 102 (43%) had MPP ON at implantation. Programmed atrial and ventricular outputs and percentage of pacing were similar between groups. MPP was associated with a 0.44 years reduction in projected battery longevity (P = .03) during long-term follow-up. Results were similar for the first and second sub-analyses, with a 0.57 years (P < .001) and 0.71 years (P < .001) reduction in projected longevity, respectively. In this long-term real-world registry, early MPP activation is associated with less than a 1-year reduction in projected battery life compared to single-site biventricular pacing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Multipoint pacing (MPP) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D), but its impact on battery longevity in a real-world population has not been investigated in large trials.
OBJECTIVE
Compare projected battery longevity in CRT-D patients with and without MPP during long-term follow-up.
METHODS
The Italian registry on multipoint left ventricular pacing (IRON-MPP) is a prospective, multicenter registry of patients implanted with MPP-capable CRT-D devices. Projected battery longevity during follow-up was compared for patients with MPP (MPP ON) vs single-site (MPP OFF) left ventricular pacing at CRT-D implantation. A sub-analysis excluded crossover patients with MPP activation or deactivation occurring after implantation. A second sub-analysis excluded patients with a right or left ventricular pacing amplitude >2.5 V.
RESULTS
Out of 237 CRT-D patients (71 ± 9 years, 81% male) followed for 1.9 ± 0.8 years, 102 (43%) had MPP ON at implantation. Programmed atrial and ventricular outputs and percentage of pacing were similar between groups. MPP was associated with a 0.44 years reduction in projected battery longevity (P = .03) during long-term follow-up. Results were similar for the first and second sub-analyses, with a 0.57 years (P < .001) and 0.71 years (P < .001) reduction in projected longevity, respectively.
CONCLUSION
In this long-term real-world registry, early MPP activation is associated with less than a 1-year reduction in projected battery life compared to single-site biventricular pacing.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2885-2891Informations de copyright
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace, 2013(15):1070-1118.
Daubert J-C, Saxon L, Adamson PB, et al. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); European Society of Cardiology (ESC); Heart Rhythm Society; Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA); American Society of Echocardiography (ASE); American Heart Association (AHA); European Association of Echocardiography (EAE) of ESC; Heart Failure Association of ESC (HFA). 2012 EHRA/HRS expert consensus statement on cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: implant and follow-up recommendations and management. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9:1524-1576.
McAlister FA, Ezekowitz JA, Wiebe N, et al. Systematic review: cardiac resynchronization in patients with symptomatic heart failure. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:381.
Adabag S, Roukoz H, Anand IS, Moss AJ. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with minimal heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:935-941.
Leyva F, Nisam S, Auricchio A. 20 years of cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1047-1058.
Brugada J, Delnoy PP, Brachmann J, et al. Contractility sensor-guided optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the RESPOND-CRT trial. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:730-738.
Thibault B, Mondésert B, Cadrin-Tourigny J, Dubuc M, Macle L, Khairy P. Benefits of multisite/multipoint pacing to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy response. Cardiac Electrophysiology Clinics. 2019;11:99-114.
Forleo GB, Santini L, Giammaria M, et al. Multipoint pacing via a quadripolar left-ventricular lead: preliminary results from the Italian registry on multipoint left-ventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (IRON-MPP). Europace. 2017;19:1170-1177.
Osca J, Alonso P, Cano O, et al. The use of multisite left ventricular pacing via quadripolar lead improves acute haemodynamics and mechanical dyssynchrony assessed by radial strain speckle tracking: initial results. Europace. 2016;18:560-567.
Zanon F, Marcantoni L, Baracca E, et al. Optimization of left ventricular pacing site plus multipoint pacing improves remodeling and clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy at 1 year. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13:1644-1651.
Pappone C, Ćalović Ž, Vicedomini G, et al. Improving cardiac resynchronization therapy response with multipoint left ventricular pacing: Twelve-month follow-up study. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:1250-1258.
Pappone C, Ćalović Ž, Vicedomini G, et al. Multipoint left ventricular pacing improves acute hemodynamic response assessed with pressure-volume loops in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:394-401.
Poole JE, Gleva MJ, Mela T, et al. Complication rates associated with pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator replacements and upgrade procedures: results from the REPLACE registry. Circulation. 2010;122:1553-1561.
Akerström F, Narváez I, Puchol A, et al. Estimation of the effects of multipoint pacing on battery longevity in routine clinical practice. Europace. 2018;20:1161-1167.
Thibault B, Dubuc M, Khairy P, et al. Acute haemodynamic comparison of multisite and biventricular pacing with a quadripolar left ventricular lead. Europace. 2013;15:984-991.
Rinaldi CA, Kranig W, Leclercq C, et al. Acute effects of multisite left ventricular pacing on mechanical dyssynchrony in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Card Failure. 2013;19:731-738.
Rinaldi CA, Leclercq C, Kranig W, et al. Improvement in acute contractility and hemodynamics with multipoint pacing via a left ventricular quadripolar pacing lead. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2014;40:75-80.
Pappone C, Ćalović Ž, Vicedomini G, et al. Multipoint left ventricular pacing in a single coronary sinus branch improves midterm echocardiographic and clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26:58-63.
Shetty AK, Sohal M, Chen Z, et al. A comparison of left ventricular endocardial, multisite, and multipolar epicardial cardiac resynchronization: an acute haemodynamic and electroanatomical study. Europace. 2014;16:873-879.
Lercher P, Lunati M, Rordorf R, et al. Long-term reverse remodeling by cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing: a feasibility study of noninvasive hemodynamics-guided device programming. Heart Rhythm. 2018;15:1766-1774.
Kirkfeldt RE, Johansen JB, Nohr EA, Jorgensen OD, Nielsen JC. Complications after cardiac implantable electronic device implantations: an analysis of a complete, nationwide cohort in Denmark. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:1186-1194.
Leclercq C, Burri H, Curnis A, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy nonresponder to responder conversion rate in the more response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing (MORE-CRT MPP) study: results from Phase I. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:2979-2987.