Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing in nonresponders to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy.
WiSE-CRT system
cardiac resynchronization therapy
endocardial pacing
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
13
02
2020
revised:
23
03
2020
accepted:
19
04
2020
pubmed:
25
4
2020
medline:
13
10
2021
entrez:
25
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. An international, multicenter registry of patients who were nonresponders to conventional CRT and underwent implantation with the WiSE-CRT system was collected. 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 cm 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.
Sections du résumé
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 cm
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
966-973Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Daubert J, Saxon L, Adamson PB, et al. EHRA/HRS expert consensus statement on cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: implant and follow-up recommendations and management. Europace. 2012;14:1236-1286.
Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2129-2200.
Lund LH, Khush KK, Cherikh WS, et al. The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: thirty-fourth adult heart transplantation report-2017; focus theme: allograft ischemic time. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36:1037-1046.
Mullens W, Grimm RA, Verga T, et al. Insights from a cardiac resynchronization optimization clinic as part of a heart failure disease management program. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:765-773.
Leyva F. Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12:64.
Behar JM, Mountney P, Toth D, et al. Real-time X-MRI-guided left ventricular lead implantation for targeted delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3:803-814.
Hyde ER, Behar JM, Claridge S, et al. Beneficial effect on cardiac resynchronization from left ventricular endocardial pacing is mediated by early access to high conduction velocity tissue: electrophysiological simulation study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015;8:1164-1172.
Biffi M, Defaye P, Jaïs P, et al. Benefits of left ventricular endocardial pacing comparing failed implants and prior non-responders to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy: a subanalysis from the ALSYNC study. Int J Cardiol. 2018;259:88-93.
Gamble JHP, Herring N, Ginks M, Rajappan K, Bashir Y, Betts TR. Endocardial left ventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace. 2018;20:73-81.
Reddy VY, Miller MA, Neuzil P, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with wireless left ventricular endocardial pacing: the SELECT-LV Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2119-2129.
Auricchio A, Delnoy PP, Butter C, et al. Feasibility, safety, and short-term outcome of leadless ultrasound-based endocardial left ventricular resynchronization in heart failure patients: results of the wireless stimulation endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) study. Europace. 2014;16:681-688.
Morgan JM, Biffi M, Geller L, et al. ALternate Site Cardiac ResYNChronization (ALSYNC): a prospective and multicentre study of left ventricular endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2118-2127.
Sieniewicz BJ, Behar JM, Gould J, et al. Guidance for optimal site selection of a leadless left ventricular endocardial electrode improves acute hemodynamic response and chronic remodeling. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4:860-868.
Sidhu BS, Lee AWC, Haberland U, Rajani R, Niederer S, Rinaldi CA. Combined computed tomographic perfusion and mechanics with predicted activation pattern can successfully guide implantation of a wireless endocardial pacing system. Europace. 2020;22:298.
Singh JP, Abraham WT, Auricchio A, et al. Design and rationale for the stimulation of the left ventricular endocardium for cardiac resynchronization therapy in non-responders and previously untreatable patients (SOLVE-CRT) trial. Am Heart J. 2019;217:13-22.
Mendonca Costa C, Neic A, Gillette K, et al. Left ventricular endocardial pacing is less arrhythmogenic than conventional epicardial pacing when pacing in proximity to scar. Heart Rhythm. 2020. 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.03.021.