Optimized single-point left ventricular pacing leads to improved resynchronization compared with multipoint pacing.
battery longevity
cardiac resynchronization therapy
electrocardiographic imaging
fusion-optimized intervals
multipoint 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:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
22
11
2020
revised:
15
01
2021
accepted:
24
01
2021
pubmed:
5
2
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
4
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Multipoint pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) activates the left ventricle from two locations, thereby shortening the QRS duration and enabling better resynchronization; however, compared with conventional CRT, MPP reduces battery longevity. On the other hand, electrocardiogram-based optimization using the fusion-optimized intervals (FOI) method achieves more significant reverse remodeling than nominal CRT programming. Our study aimed to determine whether MPP could attain better resynchronization than single-point pacing (SPP) optimized by FOI. This prospective study included 32 consecutive patients who successfully received CRT devices with MPP capabilities. After implantation, the QRS duration was measured during intrinsic rhythm and with three pacing configurations: MPP, SPP-FOI, and MPP-FOI. In 14 patients, biventricular activation times (by electrocardiographic imaging, ECGI) were obtained during intrinsic rhythm and for each pacing configuration to validate the findings. Device battery longevity was estimated at the 45-day follow-up. The SPP-FOI method achieved greater QRS shortening than MPP (-56 ± 16 vs. -42 ± 17 ms, p < .001). Adding MPP to the best FOI programming did not result in further shortening (MPP-FOI: -58 ± 14 ms, p = .69). Although biventricular activation times did not differ significantly among the three pacing configurations, only the two FOI configurations achieved significant shortening compared with intrinsic rhythm. The estimated battery longevity was longer with SPP than with MPP (8.1 ± 2.3 vs. 6.3 ± 2.0 years, p = .03). SPP optimized by FOI resulted in better resynchronization and longer battery duration than MPP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Multipoint pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) activates the left ventricle from two locations, thereby shortening the QRS duration and enabling better resynchronization; however, compared with conventional CRT, MPP reduces battery longevity. On the other hand, electrocardiogram-based optimization using the fusion-optimized intervals (FOI) method achieves more significant reverse remodeling than nominal CRT programming. Our study aimed to determine whether MPP could attain better resynchronization than single-point pacing (SPP) optimized by FOI.
METHODS
This prospective study included 32 consecutive patients who successfully received CRT devices with MPP capabilities. After implantation, the QRS duration was measured during intrinsic rhythm and with three pacing configurations: MPP, SPP-FOI, and MPP-FOI. In 14 patients, biventricular activation times (by electrocardiographic imaging, ECGI) were obtained during intrinsic rhythm and for each pacing configuration to validate the findings. Device battery longevity was estimated at the 45-day follow-up.
RESULTS
The SPP-FOI method achieved greater QRS shortening than MPP (-56 ± 16 vs. -42 ± 17 ms, p < .001). Adding MPP to the best FOI programming did not result in further shortening (MPP-FOI: -58 ± 14 ms, p = .69). Although biventricular activation times did not differ significantly among the three pacing configurations, only the two FOI configurations achieved significant shortening compared with intrinsic rhythm. The estimated battery longevity was longer with SPP than with MPP (8.1 ± 2.3 vs. 6.3 ± 2.0 years, p = .03).
CONCLUSIONS
SPP optimized by FOI resulted in better resynchronization and longer battery duration than MPP.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
519-527Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
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.
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.
Leclerc C, Burri H, Curnis A, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responder 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.
Forleo GB, Gasperetti A, Ricciardi D, et al. Impact of multipoint pacing on projected battery longevity in cardiac resynchronization therapy. An IRON-MPP study sub-analysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30:2885-2891.
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.
Arbelo E, Tolosana JM, Trucco E, et al. Fusion-optimized intervals (FOI): a new method to achieve the narrowest QRS for optimization of the AV and VV intervals in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25:283-292.
Tamborero D, Mont L, Sitges M, et al. Optimization of the interventricular delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy using the QRS width. Am J Cardiol. 2009;104:1407-1412.
Auricchio A, Prinzen FW. Non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy: the magnitude of the problem and the issues. Circ J. 2011;75:521-527.
Trucco E, Tolosana JM, Arbelo E, et al. Improvement of reverse remodeling using electrocardiogram fusion-optimized intervals in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a randomized study. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4:181-189.
Jastrzebski M, Baranchuk A, Fijorek K, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-induced acute shortening of QRS duration predicts long-term mortality only in patients with left bundle branch block. Europace. 2019;21:281-289.
Ploux S, Lumens J, Whinnett Z. Noninvasive electrocardiographic mapping to improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy: beyond QRS duration and left bundle branch block morphology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2435-2443.
Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2281-2329.
Zanon F, Baracca E, Pastore G, et al. Multipoint pacing by a left ventricular quadripolar lead improves the acute hemodynamic response to CRT compared with conventional biventricular pacing at any site. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:975-981.
Pedrón-Torrecilla J, Rodrigo M, Climent AM, et al. Noninvasive estimation of epicardial dominant high-frequency regions during atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27:435-42.
Sarvari SI, Sitges M, Sanz M. Left ventricular dysfunction is related to the presence and extent of a septal flash in patients with right ventricular pacing. Europace. 2016;19:euw020.
van Bommel RJ, Tanaka H, Delgado V, et al. Association of intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony with response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure patients with a narrow QRS complex. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:3054-3062.
Rouleau F, Merheb M, Geffroy S, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of the interventricular delay of activation and correlation to the QRS width in dilated cardiomyopathy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2001;24:1500-1506.
O'Donnell D, Wisnoskey B, Badie N, et al. Electrical synchronization achieved by multipoint pacing combined with dynamic atrioventricular delay. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-020-00842-7
Ploux S, Eschalier R, Whinnett ZI, et al. Electrical dyssynchrony induced by biventricular pacing: implications for patient selection and therapy improvement. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:782-91.
Poole JE, Gleva MJ, Mela T, et al. REPLACE registry investigators. Complication rates associated with pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator replacements and upgrade procedures. Circulation. 2010;122:1553-1561.
Varma N, Baker J II, Tomassoni G, et al. Left ventricular enlargement, CRT response and impact of multipoint pacing. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020;13:e008680.