Effects of haemodynamically atrio-ventricular optimized His bundle pacing on heart failure symptoms and exercise capacity: the His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE-HF) randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial.

AIMS: Excessive prolongation of PR interval impairs coupling of atrio-ventricular (AV) contraction, which reduces left ventricular pre-load and stroke volume, and worsens symptoms. His bundle pacing allows AV delay shortening while maintaining normal ventricular activation. HOPE-HF evaluated whether AV optimized His pacing is preferable to no-pacing, in a double-blind cross-over fashion, in patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, PR interval ≥200 ms and either QRS ≤140 ms or right bundle branch block. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients had atrial and His bundle leads implanted (and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead if clinically indicated) and were randomized to 6 months of pacing and 6 months of no-pacing utilizing a cross-over design. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake during symptom-limited exercise. Quality of life, LVEF and patients' holistic symptomatic preference between arms were secondary outcomes. Overall, 167 patients were randomized: 90% men, 69 ± 10 years, QRS duration 124 ± 26 ms, PR interval 249 ± 59 ms, LVEF 33 ± 9%. Neither peak oxygen uptake (+0.25 ml/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23 to +0.73, p = 0.3) nor LVEF (+0.5%, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.6, p = 0.4) changed with pacing but Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life improved significantly (-3.7, 95% CI -7.1 to -0.3, p = 0.03). Seventy-six percent of patients preferred His bundle pacing-on and 24% pacing-off (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: His bundle pacing did not increase peak oxygen uptake but, under double-blind conditions, significantly improved quality of life and was symptomatically preferred by the clear majority of patients. Ventricular pacing delivered via the His bundle did not adversely impact ventricular function during the 6 months.

Standard care vs. TRIVEntricular pacing in Heart Failure (STRIVE HF): a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial of triventricular pacing vs. conventional biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intermediate QRS left bundle branch block.

AIMS: To determine whether triventricular (TriV) pacing is feasible and improves CRT response compared to conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and intermediate QRS prolongation (120-150 ms). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between October 2015 and November 2019, 99 patients were recruited from 11 UK centres. Ninety-five patients were randomized 1:1 to receive TriV or BiV pacing systems. The primary endpoint was feasibility of TriV pacing. Secondary endpoints assessed symptomatic and remodelling response to CRT. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. In the TriV group, 43/46 (93.5%) patients underwent successful implantation vs. 47/49 (95.9%) in the BiV group. Feasibility of maintaining CRT at 6 months was similar in the TriV vs. BiV group (90.0% vs. 97.7%, P = 0.191). All-cause mortality was similar between TriV vs. BiV groups (4.3% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.678). There were no significant differences in echocardiographic LV volumes or clinical composite scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups. CONCLUSION: Implantation of two LV leads to deliver and maintain TriV pacing at 6 months is feasible without significant complications in the majority of patients. There was no evidence that TriV pacing improves CRT response or provides additional clinical benefit to patients with LBBB and intermediate QRS prolongation and cannot be recommended in this patient group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02529410.

The physiological effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on aortic and pulmonary flow and dynamic and static components of systemic impedance.

BACKGROUND: Patients who improve following cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have left ventricular (LV) remodeling and improved cardiac output (CO). Effects on the systemic circulation are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of CRT on aortic and pulmonary blood flow and systemic afterload. METHODS: At CRT implant patients underwent a noninvasive assessment of central hemodynamics, including wave intensity analysis (n = 28). This was repeated at 6 months after CRT. A subsample (n = 11) underwent an invasive electrophysiological and hemodynamic assessment immediately following CRT. CRT response was defined as reduction in LV end-systolic volume ≥15% at 6 months. RESULTS: In CRT responders (75% of those in the noninvasive arm), there was a significant increase in CO (from 3 ± 2 L/min to 4 ± 2 L/min, P = .002) and LV dP/dtmax (from 846 ± 162 mm Hg/s to 958 ± 194 mm Hg/s, P = .001), immediately after CRT in those in the invasive arm. They demonstrated a significant increase in aortic forward compression wave (FCW) both acutely and at follow-up. The relative change in LV dP/dtmax strongly correlated with changes in the aortic FCW (R s 0.733, P = .025). CRT responders displayed a significant reduction in afterload, and a decrease in systemic vascular resistance and pulse wave velocity acutely; there was a significant decrease in acute pulmonary afterload measured by the pulmonary FCW and forward expansion wave. CONCLUSION: Improved cardiac function following CRT is attributable to a combination of changes in the cardiac and cardiovascular system. The relative importance of these 2 mechanisms may then be important for optimizing CRT.

A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial of cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by invasive dP/dt.

BACKGROUND: No periprocedural metric has demonstrated improved cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes in a multicenter setting. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if left ventricular (LV) lead placement targeted to the coronary sinus (CS) branch generating the best acute hemodynamic response (AHR) results in improved outcomes at 6 months. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients were randomized to guided CRT or conventional CRT. Patients in the guided arm had LV dP/dtmax measured during biventricular (BIV) pacing. Target CS branches were identified and the final LV lead position was the branch with the best AHR and acceptable threshold values. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) of ≥15% at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients were recruited across 12 centers. Mean age was 70.8 ± 10.9 years and 54% had ischemic etiology. Seventy-three percent of patients in the guided arm demonstrated a reduction in LVESV of ≥15% at 6 months vs 60% in the conventional arm (P = .02). Patients with AHR ≥ 10% were more likely to demonstrate a reduction of ESV ≥ 15% (84% of patients with an AHR ≥10% vs 28% with an AHR <10%; P < 0.001). Procedure duration and fluoroscopy times were longer in the pressure wire-guided arm (104 ± 39 minutes vs 142 ± 39 minutes; P < .001 and 20 ±16 minutes vs 28 ± 15 minutes; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: AHR determined by invasively measuring LV dP/dtmax during BIV pacing predicts reverse remodeling 6 months after CRT. Patients in whom LV dP/dtmax was used to guide LV lead placement demonstrated better rates of reverse remodeling.

Day case complex devices: the state of the UK.

Objective: Complex cardiac devices including implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices can safely be implanted as a day case procedure as opposed to overnight stay. We assess how common day case complex device therapy is and the cost implications of more widespread adoption across the UK. Methods: A freedom of information request was sent to all centres performing complex cardiac devices across the UK to assess the adoption of this technique. Cost implications were assessed using Department of Health National Schedule of Reference Costs 2016-2017. Results: 100 UK centres were surveyed, 80% replied. Eighty per cent of UK centres already implant complex cardiac devices as a day case to some extent. 64.06% of centres have a protocol for this. 12.82% of centres do <25% of complex devices as a day case. 15.38% do 25%-50% as day case. 17.95% do 50%-75% as day case and 33.33% do >75% as day case. There was no relationship between centre volume and the proportion of devices done as a day case as opposed to overnight stay. The cost saving of performing a complex device as a day case as opposed to overnight stay was £412 per ICD, £525 per CRT-pacemaker and £2169 per CRT-defibrillator. Conclusions: Day case complex devices are already widespread across the UK, however, there is scope for increase. An increase in proportion of day case devices could translate to £5 583 265 in savings annually for the National Health Service if all centres performed 75% of devices as a day case.

Rationale and design of the randomized multicentre His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE-HF) trial.

AIMS: In patients with heart failure and a pathologically prolonged PR interval, left ventricular (LV) filling can be improved by shortening atrioventricular delay using His-bundle pacing. His-bundle pacing delivers physiological ventricular activation and has been shown to improve acute haemodynamic function in this group of patients. In the HOPE-HF (His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure) trial, we are investigating whether these acute haemodynamic improvements translate into improvements in exercise capacity and heart failure symptoms. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomized, crossover study aims to randomize 160 patients with PR prolongation (≥200 ms), LV impairment (EF ≤ 40%), and either narrow QRS (≤140 ms) or right bundle branch block. All patients receive a cardiac device with leads positioned in the right atrium and the His bundle. Eligible patients also receive a defibrillator lead. Those not eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator have a backup pacing lead positioned in an LV branch of the coronary sinus. Patients are allocated in random order to 6 months of (i) haemodynamically optimized dual chamber His-bundle pacing and (ii) backup pacing only, using the non-His ventricular lead. The primary endpoint is change in exercise capacity assessed by peak oxygen uptake. Secondary endpoints include change in ejection fraction, quality of life scores, B-type natriuretic peptide, daily patient activity levels, and safety and feasibility assessments of His-bundle pacing. CONCLUSIONS: Hope-HF aims to determine whether correcting PR prolongation in patients with heart failure and narrow QRS or right bundle branch block using haemodynamically optimized dual chamber His-bundle pacing improves exercise capacity and symptoms. We aim to complete recruitment by the end of 2018 and report in 2020.

Comprehensive use of cardiac computed tomography to guide left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Optimal lead positioning is an important determinant of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate cardiac computed tomography (CT) selection of the optimal epicardial vein for left ventricular (LV) lead placement by targeting regions of late mechanical activation and avoiding myocardial scar. METHODS: Eighteen patients undergoing CRT upgrade with existing pacing systems underwent preimplant electrocardiogram-gated cardiac CT to assess wall thickness, hypoperfusion, late mechanical activation, and regions of myocardial scar by the derivation of the stretch quantifier for endocardial engraved zones (SQUEEZ) algorithm. Cardiac venous anatomy was mapped to individualized American Heart Association (AHA) bull's-eye plots to identify the optimal venous target and compared with acute hemodynamic response (AHR) in each coronary venous target using an LV pressure wire. RESULTS: Fifteen data sets were evaluable. CT-SQUEEZ-derived targets produced a similar mean AHR compared with the best achievable AHR (20.4% ± 13.7% vs 24.9% ± 11.1%; P = .36). SQUEEZ-derived guidance produced a positive AHR in 92% of target segments, and pacing in a CT-SQUEEZ target vein produced a greater clinical response rate vs nontarget segments (90% vs 60%). CONCLUSION: Preprocedural CT-SQUEEZ-derived target selection may be a valuable tool to predict the optimal venous site for LV lead placement in patients undergoing CRT upgrade.

Non-laser percutaneous extraction of pacemaker and defibrillation leads: a decade of progress.

AIMS: Non-laser-based methods are safe in lead extraction but in the past have been less effective than laser methods. In the past decade, new equipment has been introduced including the Evolution® Mechanical Dilator Sheath and the Evolution® RL. We sought to determine the impact of new equipment on outcome in mechanical lead extraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We considered 288 consecutive patients (age 66 ± 18 years) who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of 522 leads in the decade to the end of 2014. Three groups were identified: Group 1 (pre-Evolution® period, 76 patients, 133 leads), Group 2 (original Evolution® period, 115 patients, 221 leads), and Group 3 (Evolution® RL period, 97 patients, 168 leads). The age of leads was significantly greater in Groups 2 and 3 (6.2 ± 4.4 and 6.1 ± 5.4 years vs.4.7 ± 4.5, P < 0.05) as was the proportion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads (27.2 and 28.9 vs. 14.3%, P < 0.05). The groups were similar in the number of leads extracted per patient. Despite the increasing complexity of the systems extracted, complete extraction was achieved in a progressively greater proportion of leads (88.0% in Group 1, 95.5% in Group 2, and 97.6% in Group 3, P < 0.05), and procedure duration was similar. The proportion of leads for which femoral access was required was greater in Group 3 (11%, 18/164) compared with Group 2 (3%, 7/211), P = 0.006. The only major complications were a post-procedure subacute tamponade in Group 1 and an oesophageal injury related to transoesophageal echocardiography in Group 3. CONCLUSION: With current equipment, mechanical extraction provides a good combination of efficacy and safety.

Femoral implantation and pull through as an adjunct to traditional methods in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: We have described the use of femoral access followed by pull through of the lead to a pectoral position to circumvent difficulty in implanting a left ventricular (LV) lead by standard methods. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish the effect of femoral implantation and pull through on the overall rate of success in percutaneous implantation of LV leads. METHODS: We collected data prospectively in all attempts at LV lead implantation from the time that we envisioned the femoral pull-through approach. RESULTS: In the 6 years to September 30, 2014, our group attempted to implant a new LV lead in 736 patients, including 16 who previously had failed attempts by other groups. A standard superior approach was successful in 726 of 731 patients (99.3%) in whom it was attempted. In 5 patients (0.7%), we failed to deliver a lead from a superior approach; in 5 of 16 patients, with previous failed attemtps (31%), we judged that those attempts had been exhaustive. In all 10 cases, LV lead placement was achieved from a femoral approach, with the procedure time being 186 ± 65 minutes. In the first case attempted, the pull through failed; the lead was tunneled to the pectoral generator. In 1 case, the coronary sinus was found to be occluded at the ostium: a transseptal approach was used with the subsequent pull through. No complication occurred. At 22.3 ± 18.5 months after the implantation, all systems implanted by a femoral approach continued to function. CONCLUSION: Used as an adjunct to standard methods, the femoral access and pull through method allows percutaneous LV lead placement in virtually all cases.

Interinstitutional measurements of left ventricular volumes, speckle-tracking strain, and dyssynchrony using three-dimensional echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional echocardiographic (3DE) analysis provides better measurements of left ventricular (LV) volumes, ejection fraction, myocardial deformation, and dyssynchrony. Many studies have shown that this technique has high intrainstitutional reproducibility. However, interinstitutional reproducibility is low, limiting its adoption. The aim of this study was to determine if standardization of training could reduce the interinstitutional variability in 3DE data analysis. METHODS: In total, 50 full-volume, transthoracic 3DE data sets of the left ventricle were analyzed by two readers. Measurements obtained included LV volumes, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, and two dyssynchrony indices. The cases represented a wide spectrum of ejection fraction. After initial analysis of 21 studies, readers formally met to standardize their analytic approach on six additional cases. Five months after the intervention, 23 new cases were analyzed. Paired t tests were performed to identify systematic institutional differences in measurements. Interinstitutional variability was quantified using intraclass correlation coefficients and variability. RESULTS: Before the intervention, there was a systematic bias in LV volumes, which was eliminated after intervention. Intraclass correlation coefficients showed that the intervention improved agreement in measurements of LV volumes, strain, and dyssynchrony between the two centers and decreased variability. CONCLUSIONS: A simple intervention to standardize analysis can reduce interinstitutional variability of measurements obtained from 3DE analysis. This intervention is needed before the use of 3DE measurement in multicenter trials and to increase the reproducibility of such measurements in routine clinical practice.