ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Multipoint pacing (MPP) improves left ventricular (LV) electrical synchrony in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). SyncAV automatically adjusts atrioventricular delay (AVD) according to intrinsic AV intervals and may further improve synchrony. Their combination has not been assessed. The objective was to evaluate the improvement in electrical synchrony achieved by SyncAV combined with MPP in an international, multicenter study. METHODS: Patients with LBBB undergoing CRT implant with a quadripolar lead (Abbott Quartet™) were prospectively enrolled. QRS duration (QRSd) was measured by blinded observers from 12-lead ECG during: intrinsic conduction, BiV pacing (conventional biventricular pacing, nominal static AVD), MPP (2 LV cathodes maximally spaced, nominal static AVD), BiV + SyncAV, and MPP + SyncAV. All SyncAV offsets were individualized for each patient to yield the narrowest QRSd during BiV pacing. QRSd changes were compared by ANOVA and post hoc Tukey-Kramer tests. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were enrolled (65.7 ± 12.1 years, 67% male, 37% ischemic, EF 26.4 ± 6.5%, PR 190.3 ± 39.1 ms). Relative to intrinsic conduction (QRSd of 165 ± 16 ms), BiV reduced QRSd by 11.9% to 145 ± 18 ms (P < 0.001 vs intrinsic), and MPP reduced QRSd by 13.3% to 142 ± 19 ms (P < 0.001 vs intrinsic). However, enabling SyncAV with a patient-optimized offset nearly doubled this QRSd reduction. BiV + SyncAV reduced QRSd by 22.0% to 128 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001 vs BiV), while MPP + SyncAV reduced QRSd further by 25.6% to 122 ± 14 ms (P < 0.05 vs BiV + SyncAV). CONCLUSION: SyncAV can significantly improve acute electrical synchrony beyond conventional CRT, with further improvement achieved by superimposing MPP.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy , Heart Failure , Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices , Electrocardiography , Female , Heart Failure/diagnostic imaging , Heart Failure/therapy , Heart Ventricles , Humans , Male , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) epicardial pacing results in slowly propagating paced wavefronts. We postulated that this effect might limit cardiac resynchronization therapy efficacy in patients with LV enlargement using conventional biventricular pacing with single-site LV pacing, but be mitigated by LV stimulation from 2 widely spaced sites using MultiPoint pacing with wide anatomic separation (MPP-AS: ≥30 mm). We tested this hypothesis in the multicenter randomized MPP investigational device exemption trial. METHODS: Following implant, quadripolar biventricular single-site pacing was activated in all patients (n=506). From 3 to 9 months postimplant, among patients with available baseline LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) measures, 188 received biventricular single-site pacing and 43 received MPP-AS. Patients were dichotomized by median baseline LVEDV indexed to height (LVEDVIMedian). Outcomes were measured by the clinical composite score (primary efficacy end point), quality of life, LV structural remodeling (↑EF >5% and ↓ESV 10%) and heart failure event/cardiovascular death. RESULTS: LVEDVIMedian was 1.1 mL/cm. Baseline characteristics differed in patients with LVEDVI>Median versus LVEDVI≤Median. Among patients with LVEDVI>Median, biventricular single-site pacing was less efficacious compared to patients with LVEDVI≤Median (clinical composite score, 65% versus 79%). In contrast, MPP-AS programming generated greater clinical composite score response (92% versus 65%, P=0.023) and improved quality of life (-31.0±29.7 versus -15.7±22.1, P=0.038) versus biventricular single-site pacing in patients with LVEDVI>Median. Reverse remodeling trended better with MPP-AS programming. In patients with LVEDVI>Median, heart failure event rate increased following the 3-month randomization point with biventricular single-site pacing (0.0150±0.1725 in LVEDVI>Median versus -0.0190±0.0808 in LVEDVI ≤Median, P=0.012), but no heart failure event occurred in patients with MPP-AS programming between 3 and 9 months in LVEDVI>Median. All measured outcomes did not differ in patients receiving MPP-AS and biventricular single-site pacing with LVEDVI≤Median. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional biventricular single-site pacing, even with a quadripolar lead, has reduced efficacy in patients with LV enlargement. However, the greatest response rate in patients with larger hearts was observed when programmed to MPP-AS pacing.
