A prospective randomized evaluation of VV delay optimization in CRT-D recipients: echocardiographic observations from the RHYTHM II ICD study.

BACKGROUND: All current cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices allow the programming of the atrioventricular (AV/PV) delays and the sequential stimulation of the ventricles via the inter ventricular (VV) delay. AIM: This post hoc analysis of the RHYTHM II study was conducted to compare the reverse remodeling associated with VV delay optimization in patients randomly assigned to simultaneous (SIM) biventricular stimulation versus patients assigned to optimized VV delay programming (OPT) (1:3 randomization scheme). METHODS: The analysis included 14 patients assigned to the SIM group and 34 patients to the OPT group who completed the 6-month follow-up period with paired echocardiographic recordings. RESULTS: In both study groups, changes consistent with left ventricular (LV) remodeling were observed between baseline and 6 months, with significant improvements in LV function and decrease in LV dimensions. In the OPT group, there was also a decrease in left atrial diameter and mitral valve closure to opening time. At 6 months, the overall proportion of echocardiographic responders (> or =10% decrease in LV end-systolic volume or > or =5% absolute increase in LV ejection fraction) was similar in both groups. The optimal AV/VV delays, evaluated by maximization of LV outflow tract velocity time integral, changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: Ventriculo-ventricular delay optimization was associated with better immediate hemodynamic function than simultaneous biventricular stimulation, though did not promote additional reverse remodeling at 6 months and did not increase the proportion of echocardiographic responders to CRT. Optimization of both the AV and VV intervals was patient-specific and optimal values changed over time.

Randomized comparison of simultaneous biventricular stimulation versus optimized interventricular delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy. The Resynchronization for the HemodYnamic Treatment for Heart Failure Management II implantable cardioverter defibrillator (RHYTHM II ICD) study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical value of interventricular (V-V) delay optimization in patients with chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) undergoing implantation of a device for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been clearly demonstrated. METHODS: RHYTHM II was a single-blind randomized trial including 121 recipients of a device for CRT with cardioverter/defibrillator capabilities (CRT-D) randomly assigned in a 1:3 ratio to simultaneous (n = 30) versus optimized (OPT) (n = 91) biventricular pacing. V-V delay was optimized by echocardiography. The study end points were (1) freedom from CRT-D system-related complications and (2) changes between preimplant and 6 months of follow-up in (a) New York Heart Association CHF functional class, (b) distance covered during a 6-minute hall walk, and (c) quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: In the OPT group, the V-V delay ranged from 0 to 80 milliseconds, with 28.4% of patients stimulated at an OPT V-V delay of 0 milliseconds. The overall 6-month survival free of adverse events requiring invasive interventions was 81.8%. In the whole cohort, 6 months of CRT-D was associated with a significant decrease in New York Heart Association class, increase in the distance covered during the 6-minute hall walk, and improvement in QOL (each P < .0001). The effects of CRT-D on these end points were similar in both study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cardioverter-defibrillator capabilities was associated with a significant alleviation of CHF symptoms, increase in functional capacity, and improvement in QOL. The optimization of the V-V delay conferred no additional benefit compared with simultaneous biventricular stimulation.

Anterior-posterior versus anterior-lateral electrode positions for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: External cardioversion is a readily available treatment for persistent atrial fibrillation. Although anatomical and electrophysiological considerations suggest that an anterior-posterior electrode position should create a more homogeneous shock-field gradient throughout the atria than an anterior-lateral position, both electrode positions are equally recommended for external cardioversion in current guidelines. We undertook a randomised trial comparing the two positions with the endpoint of successful cardioversion. METHODS: 108 consecutive patients (mean age 60 years [SD 16]) with persistent atrial fibrillation (median duration 5 months, range 0.1-120) underwent elective external cardioversion by a standardised step-up protocol with increasing shock strengths (50-360 J). Electrode positions were randomly assigned as anterior-lateral or anterior-posterior. If sinus rhythm was not achieved with 360 J energy, a single cross-over shock (360 J) was applied with the other electrode configuration. A planned interim analysis was done after these patients had been recruited; it was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Cardioversion was successful in a higher proportion of the anterior-posterior than the anterior-lateral group (50 of 52 [96%] vs 44 of 56 [78%], difference 23.7% (95% CI 9.1-37.8, p=0.009). Cross-over from the anterior-lateral to the anterior-posterior electrode position was successful in eight of 12 patients, whereas cross-over in the other direction was not successful (two patients). After cross-over, cardioversion was successful in 102 of 108 randomised patients (94%). INTERPRETATION: An anterior-posterior electrode position is more effective than the anterior-lateral position for external cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation. These results should be considered in clinical practice, for the design of defibrillation electrode pads, and when guidelines for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation are updated.