Large variability in clinical judgement and definitions of left bundle branch block to identify candidates for cardiac resynchronisation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology is associated with improved outcome of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) and is an important criterion for patient selection. There are, however, multiple definitions for LBBB. Moreover, applying these definitions seems subjective. We investigated the inter- and intraobserver agreement in the determination of LBBB using available definitions, and clinicians' judgement of LBBB. METHODS: Observers were provided with 12­lead ECGs of 100 randomly selected CRT patients. Four observers judged the ECGs based on different LBBB-definitions (ESC, AHA/ACC/HRS, MADIT, and Strauss). Additionally, four implanting cardiologists scored the same 100 ECGs based on their clinical judgement. Observer agreement was summarized through the proportion of agreement (P) and kappa coefficient (k). RESULTS: Relative intra-observer agreement using different LBBB definitions, and within clinical judgement was moderate (range k 0.47-0.74 and k = 0.76 (0.14), respectively). The inter-observer agreement between observers using LBBB definitions as well as between clinical observers was minimal to weak (range k 0.19-0.44 and k = 0.35 (0.20), respectively). The probability of classifying an ECG as LBBB by available definitions varied considerably (range 0.20-0.76). The agreement between different definitions of LBBB ranged from good (P = 0.95 (0.07)) to weak (P = 0.40 (0.22)). Furthermore, correlation between the different LBBB definitions and clinical judgement was poor (range phi 0.30-0.55). CONCLUSION: Significant variation in the probability of classifying LBBB is present in using different definitions and clinical judgement. Considerable intra- and inter-observer variability adds to this variation. Interdefinition agreement varies significantly and correlation of clinical judgement with LBBB classification by definitions is modest at best.

The risk of ventricular arrhythmias in a Dutch CRT population: CRT-defibrillator versus CRT-pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: Patients eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) have an indication for primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. However, response to CRT might influence processes involved in arrhythmogenesis and therefore change the necessity of ICD therapy in certain patients. METHOD: In 202 CRT-defibrillator patients, the association between baseline variables, 6-month echocardiographic outcome (volume response: left ventricular end-systolic volume decrease < ≥15 % and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ >35 %) and the risk of first appropriate ICD therapy was analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: Fifty (25 %) patients received appropriate ICD therapy during a median follow-up of 37 (23-52) months. At baseline ischaemic cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio (HR) 2.0, p = 0.019) and a B-type natriuretic peptide level > 163 pmol/l (HR 3.8, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with the risk of appropriate ICD therapy. After 6 months, 105 (52 %) patients showed volume response and 51 (25 %) reached an LVEF > 35 %. Three (6 %) patients with an LVEF > 35 % received appropriate ICD therapy following echocardiography at ± 6 months compared with 43 patients (29 %) with an LVEF ≤ 35 % (p = 0.001). LVEF post-CRT was more strongly associated to the risk of ventricular arrhythmias than volume response (LVEF > 35 %, HR 0.23, p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Assessing the necessity of an ICD in patients eligible for CRT remains a challenge. Six months post-CRT an LVEF > 35 % identified patients at low risk of ventricular arrhythmias. LVEF might be used at the time of generator replacement to identify patients suitable for downgrading to a CRT-pacemaker.

"Are CRT upgrade procedures more complex and associated with more complications than de novo CRT implantations?" A single centre experience.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine whether cardiac resynchronisation therapy upgrade procedures are more complex and associated with more complications than de novo implantations. METHOD: We retrospectively compared 134 upgrade procedures performed between 2006-2012 with a random, equally sized, sample of de novo CRT device implantations in the same period. Procedural data and the occurrence of periprocedural (≤ 30 days) and long-term device-related (≤ 1 year) complications were analysed. Complications with consequences were defined as those in need of adjustment of standard care. RESULTS: Median time to upgrade was 57 (31-115) months. There were no significant differences in procedure duration, radiation time or total hospitalisation between upgrades and de novo implantations. Perioperative complications occurred in 6.7 % of upgrade patients and in 9.0 % of de novo patients. The most frequently seen complications were phrenic nerve stimulation, coronary sinus dissection and pocket haematoma. Procedure success was comparable (upgrade: 98.5 % versus de novo: 96.3 %). A total of 236 patients completed 1 year of follow-up. Ten (4.2 %) patients had a long-term device-related complication with consequences including phrenic nerve stimulation, lead dislodgement/dysfunction, and infection (upgrade: 3.5 % versus de novo: 4.9 %). CONCLUSION: Upgrade procedures are not more complex nor associated with more complications than de novo CRT implantations.

Measurements of electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony are both essential to improve prediction of CRT response.

INTRODUCTION: Predicting reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains challenging and different etiologies of heart failure might hamper identification of predictors. OBJECTIVE: Assess the incremental value of mechanical dyssynchrony besides electrical dyssynchrony for predicting CRT response. METHODS: 227 patients (51% ischemic) received CRT. Response was defined as ≥15% left ventricular end systolic volume decrease after six months. Prediction models were developed comprising clinical parameters and electrical dyssynchrony (Model A), subsequently complemented with mechanical dyssynchrony (Model B). Models were compared by area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC), net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) for the complete cohort, ischemic (ICM) and non-ischemic (NICM) subpopulations. RESULTS: Model B performed significantly better than Model A supported by AUC, NRI and IDI. Furthermore, model B significantly better predicted response for NICM than ICM. CONCLUSION: Electrical dyssynchrony and mechanical dyssynchrony are essential to predict CRT response. Nevertheless, response prediction for ICM remains challenging.