Multipoint pacing is associated with improved prognosis and cardiac resynchronization therapy response. MORE-CRT MPP randomized study secondary analyses.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular (BIV) pacing is indicated in patients with heart failure (HF), reduced ejection fraction and prolonged QRS duration. Quadripolar leads and MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) allow multiple left ventricle (LV) sites pacing. We aimed to assess clinical benefit of MPP in patients who do not respond to standard BIV pacing. METHODS: Overall 3724 patients were treated with standard BIV pacing. After 6 months, 1639 patients were considered as CRT non-responders (echo-measured relative reduction in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) < 15%) and randomized to MPP or BIV. RESULTS: We analysed 593 randomized patients (291 MPP, 302 BIV), who had BIV pacing >97% of time before randomization and complete 12-months clinical and echocardiographic data. The endpoint, composed by freedom from cardiac death and HF hospitalizations, and by LVESV relative reduction ≥15% between randomization and 12 months, occurred more frequently in MPP (96/291 (33.0%)) vs. BIV (71/302 (23.5%), p = 0.0103), also confirmed at multivariate analysis (hazard ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = 1.02-2.34, p = 0.0402 vs. BIV). HF hospitalizations occurred less frequently in MPP (14/291 (4.81%)) vs. BIV (29/302 (9.60%), incidence rate ratio = 50%, p = 0.0245). Selecting patients with large (>30 ms) dispersion of interventricular electrical delay among the 4 LV lead dipoles, reverse remodeling was more frequent in MPP (18/51 (35.3%)) vs. BIV (11/62 (17.7%), p = 0.0335). CONCLUSION: In patients who do not respond to standard CRT, despite high BIV pacing percentage, MPP is associated with lower occurrence of HF hospitalizations and higher probability of reverse LV remodeling, compared with BIV pacing.

Left bundle branch area pacing: A new era of cardiac resynchronization therapy?

The recent systematic review and meta-analysis provided a comprehensive focus on the current state of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The authors determined the feasibility of physiological left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in patients indicated for CRT through a careful analysis of trials. They found that LBBAP was associated with significant reductions in QRS duration, New York Heart Association functional class, B-type natriuretic peptide levels, and pacing thresholds as well as improvements in echocardiographic parameters compared to biventricular pacing.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by interventricular conduction delay: How to choose between biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing.

BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing (BIV) is the gold standard for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Thirty percent of patients do not respond to CRT. Conduction system pacing (CSP) represents a viable alternative. Interventricular conduction delay (IVCD), as electrical desynchrony marker, is a CRT response predictor. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of CRT responders by selecting the best approach between BIV and CPS based on intraoperative IVCD measurement in patients with HFrEF and LBBB. METHODS: Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a standard BIV group(control group, CG) or a group where the CRT approach was determined based on IVCD evaluation(study group, SG). If the right ventricular sensed electrogram (RVs)-left ventricular sensed electrogram (LVs) interval was ≥100 ms, the lead was left in its original position; otherwise, the LV lead was removed, and CSP was performed instead. Clinical, EKG, and echocardiographic features have been assessed pre- and 6 months post-implant. Echocardiographic and clinical responder were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of patients in the SG underwent CSP, as the operative algorithm. The incidence of CRT responders was significantly higher in the SG (echocardiographic criterion: 92.5% vs. 69.8%, p:.009; clinical criterion 87.5% vs. 62.8%, p:.014). The SG showed a significantly greater difference in EF between pre- and post-implant as well as reduced end-diastolic and systolic volumes. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis indicated that enrollment in the SG was the only factor associated with CRT response. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative assessment of IVCD could help determine the optimal CRT approach between BIV and CSP, leading to a significant improvement in the rate of CRT responders.

Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Results from International Collaborative LBBAP Study (I-CLAS) Group.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a guideline-recommended therapy in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF, 36%-50%) and left bundle branch block or indication for ventricular pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using left bundle branch area pacing or His bundle pacing has been shown to be a safe and physiologic alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and CSP for patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent BVP or CSP with HFmrEF between January 2018 and June 2023 at 16 international centers were included. The primary outcome was the composite end point of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary end points included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and individual end points of death and HFH. RESULTS: A total of 1004 patients met inclusion criteria: BVP, 178; CSP, 826 (His bundle pacing, 154; left bundle branch area pacing, 672). Mean age was 73 ± 13 years; female, 34%; and LVEF, 42% ± 5%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower compared with BVP (129 ± 21 ms vs 144 ± 19 ms; P < .001). LVEF improved during follow-up in both groups (49% ± 10% vs 48% ± 10%; P = .32). CSP was independently associated with significant reduction in the primary end point of time to death or HFH compared with BVP (22% vs 34%; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.94; P = .025). CONCLUSION: CSP was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in this large cohort of patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT. Randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP will be necessary to confirm these results.

Comparison of acute hemodynamic effect of prioritizing ventricular resynchronization vs left ventricular filling during optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the maximal ventricular resynchronization, with the shortest QRS duration (QRSd), is commonly implemented after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare optimization of ventricular resynchronization with optimization of left ventricular (LV) filling during CRT by measuring their acute hemodynamic effects. METHODS: Patients with standard CRT indications, recruited from 2 centers, underwent biventricular pacing (BVP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). We performed a within-patient comparison of acute hemodynamic response of systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the atrioventricular delay (AVD) with the shortest QRSd against the AVD with the most efficient LV filling. In a validation substudy, we also performed electrical assessment using QRS area (QRSa) and hemodynamic assessment with the maximum rate of LV pressure rise (dP/dtmax). RESULTS: Thirty patients (age 65 ± 10 years; 53% male) were recruited. The AVD producing maximal ventricular resynchronization was associated with a significantly shorter QRSd (difference 15 ± 12 ms for BVP and 18 ± 13 ms for LBBP, both P <.01) and a significantly smaller improvement in SBP (difference 3 ± 4 mm Hg for BVP and 2 ± 2 mm Hg for LBBP, both P <.01) compared with the AVD that optimized filling. Similar findings were observed in the substudy, with a significantly smaller improvement in dP/dtmax assessed with QRSd and QRSa (difference 9% ± 7% and 6% ± 4% during BVP, and 5% ± 6% and 3% ± 3% during LBBP, all P <.01). CONCLUSION: Targeting the maximal ventricular resynchronization results in suboptimal acute hemodynamic performance with both BVP and LBBP as CRT. These findings support prioritizing LV filling when programming AVD for CRT.

Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Analysis of LBBaP Versus BVP in Heart Failure Patients With LBBB.

BACKGROUND: For the initial treatment strategy for patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indications, whether to choose left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) or biventricular pacing (BVP) remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of LBBaP and BVP in heart failure (HF) patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). METHODS: This observational study included HF patients with LBBB who underwent successful LBBaP or BVP. The primary outcomes were echocardiographic response (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] increase ≥5%), LVEF improvement, hospitalization costs, and CER (CER = cost/echocardiographic response rate). Secondary outcomes included other echocardiographic parameters, New York Heart Association (NYHA), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), pacemaker parameters, complications, ventricular arrhythmia (VA) events, HF hospitalization (HFH), and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients (85 LBBaP and 45 BVP) were included (65.6 ± 10.0 years, 70.77% men). The median follow-up period was 16(12,30), months. Compared with BVP, the LBBaP group showed a greater increase in LVEF (20.2% ± 11.8% vs. 10.5% ± 13.9%; p < 0.001), higher echocardiographic response rate (86.1% vs. 57.8%; p < 0.001), and lower hospitalization costs [$9707.7 (7751.2, 18,088.5) vs. $20,046.1 (18,840.1, 22,447.3); p < 0.0001]. The CER was 112.7 and 346.8 in LBBaP and BVP, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = △cost/△echocardiographic response rate) was $-365.3/per 1% increase in effectiveness. LBBaP improved cardiac function more significantly than BVP. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LBBaP-CRT is more cost-effective than BVP, offering greater LVEF improvement, higher echocardiographic response rates, lower hospitalization costs, and more significantly improved cardiac function. These findings need large randomized clinical trials for further confirmation.

Utility of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Assessing Arrhythmic Risk in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Undergoing Biventricular Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) is responsible for approximately one-third of heart failure and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recent data suggested the lack of mortality reduction from adding a defibrillator to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in all patients with NICM. Myocardial fibrosis detected by cardiac magnetic resonance late gadolinium enhancement (CMR-LGE) can help risk stratify patients who would benefit from adding a defibrillator to CRT in this patient population. OBJECTIVES: We aim to assess the relationship between the presence of myocardial fibrosis detected by CMR-LGE and the rate of major arrhythmic events (MAE) that included sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), appropriate cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) intervention, ventricular fibrillation (VF), and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with NICM undergoing CRT and to compare all-cause mortality and heart failure improvement between patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacing (CRT-P) versus those receiving CRT-D based on the presence of myocardial fibrosis. METHODS: All consecutive patients with NICM satisfying a guideline-directed indication for CRT implantation were included in the study after excluding patients who refused to consent, patients with acute decompensated heart failure, and those contraindicated for a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence of fibrosis in cardiac MRI: the LGE/CRT-D group and the No LGE/CRT-P group. They were then followed for 1 year. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled. Sixteen patients (26.6%) developed MAE during the study duration, among those patients, seven had myocardial fibrosis (receiving CRT-D as per protocol), while nine had no myocardial fibrosis (receiving CRT-P as per protocol), (41.2% vs. 20.9%, p = 0.045). The presence of CMR-LGE, regardless of the extent and distribution, predicted MAE with an odds ratio of 2.6 (CI = 1.78-8.9, p = 0.04). The presence of ≥7.5% of myocardial fibrosis by CMR was associated with 54% sensitivity and 100% specificity for MAE in the study population. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in the No LGE/CRT-P group versus the LGE/CRT-D group (15 [34.9%] vs. 2 [11.8%], p = 0.076). CONCLUSION: In patients with NICM candidates for biventricular pacing, the presence of LGE on CMR, irrespective of the extent or segmental pattern, is independently associated with an MAE and is associated with worse heart failure outcomes. However, the absence of LGE did not rule out MAE, and implanting CRT-P based on lack of fibrosis may result in higher all-cause mortality.

His bundle pacing combined with atrioventricular node ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: His bundle pacing (HBP) could replace failed biventricular pacing (BVP) in guidelines (IIa Indication), but the high capture thresholds and backup lead pacing requirements limit its development. We assessed the efficacy and safety of HBP combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) and compared with BVP and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). METHODS: We reviewed PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) score, QRS duration (QRSd), and pacing threshold. RESULTS: Thirteen studies included 1115 patients (639 with HBP, 338 with BVP, and 221 with LBBP). Compared with baseline, HBP improved LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 9.24 [6.10, 12.37]; p < 0.01), reduced NYHA score (MD: -1.12 [-1.34, -0.91]; p < 0.01), increased QRSd (MD: 10.08 [4.45, 15.70]; p < 0.01), and rose pacing threshold (MD: 0.16 [0.05, 0.26]; p < 0.01). HBP had comparable efficacy to BVP and LBBP and lower QRSd (p < 0.05). HBP had a lower success rate (85.97%) and more complications (16.1%). CONCLUSION: HBP combined with AVNA is effective for AF, despite having a lower success rate and more complications. Further trials are required to determine whether HBP is superior to BVP and LBBP.

Safety and efficacy of orthodromic snare technique in left ventricular lead delivery in cardiac resynchronization implantation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves ventricular function, but a positive response to CRT is often limited due to left ventricular (LV) lead placement in a suboptimal position. Complex coronary venous anatomy can hinder the placement of an LV lead in the target vessel, leading to poor CRT response. OBJECTIVE: To report experience with snare-assisted LV lead delivery in CRT and compare outcomes with the conventional LV lead delivery. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective case-control study of CRT implants between 2016 and 2021. Snare-assisted lead delivery was performed in cases where conventional lead placement failed or when a preferred target vessel had anatomy amenable to the technique. Safety and outcomes were compared to conventional LV lead placement cases. RESULTS: Among 180 CRT cases, 33 were snare-assisted, and 147 were conventional LV lead placements. Median follow-up was 924 days in the snare and 618.5 days in the control group. The lead placement was successful in 28/33 snare and 138/147 control cases. A mid-vessel segment was attained in 89.3% of snare and 72.5% of control cases(p = .03). The apical position was more frequently observed in the control group (26.8% vs. 7.1%, p = .03). All-cause mortality trended lower in the snare group (6.1%) compared to (17.1%) in the control group (p = .13). CONCLUSION: Snare-assisted LV lead delivery is a safe and effective technique that can be utilized for overcoming complex venous anatomy.

Conduction system pacing upgrade versus biventricular pacing on pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy: a retrospective observational study.

Objective: The feasibility of the conduction system pacing (CSP) upgrade as an alternative modality to the traditional biventricular pacing (BiVP) upgrade in patients with pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) remains uncertain. This study sought to compare two modalities of CSP (His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP)) with BiVP and no upgrades in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Methods: This retrospective analysis comprised consecutive patients who underwent either BiVP or CSP upgrade for PICM at the cardiac department from 2017 to 2021. Patients with a follow-up period exceeding 12 months were considered for the final analysis. Results: The final group of patients who underwent upgrades included 48 individuals: 11 with BiVP upgrades, 24 with HBP upgrades, and 13 with LBBP upgrades. Compared to the baseline data, there were significant improvements in cardiac performance at the last follow-up. After the upgrade, the QRS duration (127.81 ± 31.89 vs 177.08 ± 34.35 ms, p < 0.001), NYHA class (2.28 ± 0.70 vs 3.04 ± 0.54, p < 0.05), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (54.08 ± 4.80 vs 57.50 ± 4.85 mm, p < 0.05), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (44.46% ± 6.39% vs 33.15% ± 5.25%, p < 0.001) were improved. There was a noticeable improvement in LVEF in the CSP group (32.15% ± 3.22% vs 44.95% ± 3.99% (p < 0.001)) and the BiVP group (33.90% ± 3.09% vs 40.83% ± 2.99% (p < 0.001)). The changes in QRS duration were more evident in CSP than in BiVP (56.65 ± 11.71 vs 34.67 ± 13.32, p < 0.001). Similarly, the changes in LVEF (12.8 ± 3.66 vs 6.93 ± 3.04, p < 0.001) and LVEDD (5.80 ± 1.71 vs 3.16 ± 1.35, p < 0.001) were greater in CSP than in BiVP. The changes in LVEDD (p = 0.549) and LVEF (p = 0.570) were similar in the LBBP and HBP groups. The threshold in LBBP was also lower than that in HBP (1.01 ± 0.43 vs 1.33 ± 0.32 V, p = 0.019). Conclusion: The improvement of clinical outcomes in CSP was more significant than in BiVP. CSP may be an alternative therapy to CRT for patients with PICM. LBBP would be a better choice than HBP due to its lower thresholds.

[New pacing strategies for heart failure]. / Neue Pacing-Strategien bei Herzinsuffizienz.

In patients with a reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function (ejection fraction < 35%) and a left bundle branch block with a QRS duration > 130 ms, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can contribute to an improvement in the quality of life and a reduction in mortality. The resynchronization is mostly achieved by pacing via an epicardial LV lead in the coronary sinus; however, this approach is often limited by the patient's venous anatomy and an increase in the stimulation threshold over time. In addition, up to 30% of patients do not respond to the intervention. New treatment approaches involve direct stimulation of the conduction system by pacing of the bundle of His or left bundle branch. This enables a more physiological propagation of the stimulus. Pacing of the left bundle branch is achieved by advancing the lead into the right ventricle and screwing it deep into the interventricular septum. Due to the relatively large target area of the left bundle branch the success rate is very high (currently > 90%). Observational studies have shown a greater reduction in the QRS duration, a more pronounced improvement in systolic function and a lower hospitalization rate for heart failure associated with conduction system pacing compared to CRT using a coronary sinus lead. These findings have been confirmed in small randomized trials. Therefore, the use of left bundle branch pacing should be considered not only as a bail out in the case of failed resynchronization using coronary sinus lead placement but increasingly also as an initial pacing strategy. The results of the first large randomized trials are expected to be released in late 2024.

Association between amount of biventricular pacing and heart failure status measured by a multisensor implantable defibrillator algorithm.

Background: Achieving a high biventricular pacing percentage (BiV%) is crucial for optimizing outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The HeartLogic index, a multiparametric heart failure (HF) risk score, incorporates implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-measured variables and has demonstrated its predictive ability for impending HF decompensation. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between daily BiV% in CRT ICD patients and their HF status, assessed using the HeartLogic algorithm. Methods: The HeartLogic algorithm was activated in 306 patients across 26 centers, with a median follow-up of 26 months (25th-75th percentile: 15-37). Results: During the follow-up period, 619 HeartLogic alerts were recorded in 186 patients. Overall, daily values associated with the best clinical status (highest first heart sound, intrathoracic impedance, patient activity; lowest combined index, third heart sound, respiration rate, night heart rate) were associated with a BiV% exceeding 99%. We identified 455 instances of BiV% dropping below 98% after consistent pacing periods. Longer episodes of reduced BiV% (hazard ratio: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.02-9.72; P = .045) and lower BiV% (hazard ratio: 3.97; 95% CI: 1.74-9.06; P=.001) were linked to a higher risk of HeartLogic alerts. BiV% drops exceeding 7 days predicted alerts with 90% sensitivity (95% CI [74%-98%]) and 55% specificity (95% CI [51%-60%]), while BiV% ≤96% predicted alerts with 74% sensitivity (95% CI [55%-88%]) and 81% specificity (95% CI [77%-85%]). Conclusion: A clear correlation was observed between reduced daily BiV% and worsening clinical conditions, as indicated by the HeartLogic index. Importantly, even minor reductions in pacing percentage and duration were associated with an increased risk of HF alerts.

Sex Differences in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Women respond more favorably to biventricular pacing (BIVP) than men. Sex differences in atrioventricular and interventricular conduction have been described in BIVP studies. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) offers advantages due to direct capture of the conduction system. We hypothesized that men could respond better to LBBAP than BIVP. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe the sex differences in response to LBBAP vs BIVP as the initial cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: In this multicenter prospective registry, we included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and left bundle branch block or a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% with an expected right ventricular pacing exceeding 40% undergoing initial CRT with LBBAP or BIVP. The composite primary outcome was heart failure-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome included all procedure-related complications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the primary outcome when comparing men and women receiving LBBAP (P = 0.46), whereas the primary outcome was less frequent in women in the BIVP group than men treated with BIVP (P = 0.03). The primary outcome occurred less frequently in men undergoing LBBAP (29.9%) compared to those treated with BIVP (46.5%) (P = 0.004). In women, the incidence of the primary endpoint was 24.14% in the LBBAP group and 36.2% in the BIVP group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.23). Complication rates remained consistent across all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Men and women undergoing LBBAP for CRT had similar clinical outcomes. Men undergoing LBBAP showed a lower risk of heart failure-related hospitalizations and all-cause mortality compared to men undergoing BIVP, whereas there was no difference between LBBAP and BIVP in women.

Left bundle branch pacing set to outshine biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy?

The deleterious effects of long-term right ventricular pacing necessitated the search for alternative pacing sites which could prevent or alleviate pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Until recently, biventricular pacing (BiVP) was the only modality which could mitigate or prevent pacing induced dysfunction. Further, BiVP could resynchronize the baseline electromechanical dssynchrony in heart failure and improve outcomes. However, the high non-response rate of around 20%-30% remains a major limitation. This non-response has been largely attributable to the direct non-physiological stimulation of the left ventricular myocardium bypassing the conduction system. To overcome this limitation, the concept of conduction system pacing (CSP) came up. Despite initial success of the first CSP via His bundle pacing (HBP), certain drawbacks including lead instability and dislodgements, steep learning curve and rapid battery depletion on many occasions prevented its widespread use for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Subsequently, CSP via left bundle branch-area pacing (LBBP) was developed in 2018, which over the last few years has shown efficacy comparable to BiVP-CRT in small observational studies. Further, its safety has also been well established and is largely free of the pitfalls of the HBP-CRT. In the recent metanalysis by Yasmin et al, comprising of 6 studies with 389 participants, LBBP-CRT was superior to BiVP-CRT in terms of QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac chamber dimensions, lead thresholds, and functional status amongst heart failure patients with left bundle branch block. However, there are important limitations of the study including the small overall numbers, inclusion of only a single small randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a small follow-up duration. Further, the entire study population analyzed was from China which makes generalizability a concern. Despite the concerns, the meta-analysis adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of LBBP-CRT. At this stage, one must acknowledge that the fact that still our opinions on this technique are largely based on observational data and there is a dire need for larger RCTs to ascertain the position of LBBP-CRT in management of heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.

A Comparison of the Association of Septal Scar Burden on Responses to LBBAP-CRT and BVP-CRT.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, despite the presence of left bundle branch block, whether cardiac substrate may influence the effect between the 2 strategies is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the association of septal scar on reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes of LBBAP compared with BVP. METHODS: We analyzed patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who had CRT indications undergoing preprocedure cardiac magnetic resonance examination. Changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and echocardiographic response (ER) (≥5% absolute LVEF increase) were assessed at 6 months. The clinical outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or major ventricular arrhythmia. RESULTS: There were 147 patients included (51 LBBAP and 96 BVP). Among patients with low septal scar burden (below median 5.7%, range: 0% to 5.3%), LVEF improvement was higher in the LBBAP than the BVP group (17.5% ± 10.9% vs 12.3% ± 11.8%; P = 0.037), with more than 3-fold increased odds of ER (OR: 4.35; P = 0.033). In high sepal scar subgroups (≥5.7%, range: 5.7%-65.9%), BVP trended towards higher LVEF improvement (9.2% ± 9.4% vs 6.4% ± 12.4%; P = 0.085). Interaction between septal scar burden and pacing strategy was significant for ER (P = 0.002) and LVEF improvement (P = 0.011) after propensity score adjustment. During median follow-up of 33.7 (Q1-Q3: 19.8-42.1) months, the composite clinical outcome occurred in 34.7% (n = 51) of patients. The high-burden subgroups had worse clinical outcomes independent of CRT method. CONCLUSIONS: Remodeling response to LBBAP and BVP among nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients is modified by septal scar burden. High septal scar burden was associated with poor clinical prognosis independent of CRT methods.

Longitudinal comparison of dyssynchrony correction and 'strain' improvement by conduction system pacing: LEVEL-AT trial secondary findings.

AIMS: Longitudinal dyssynchrony correction and 'strain' improvement by comparable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) techniques is unreported. Our purpose was to compare echocardiographic dyssynchrony correction and 'strain' improvement by conduction system pacing (CSP) vs. biventricular pacing (BiVP) as a marker of contractility improvement during 1-year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: A treatment-received analysis was performed in patients included in the LEVEL-AT trial (NCT04054895), randomized to CSP or BiVP, and evaluated at baseline (ON and OFF programming) and at 6 and 12 months (n = 69, 32% women). Analysis included intraventricular (septal flash), interventricular (difference between left and right ventricular outflow times), and atrioventricular (diastolic filling time) dyssynchrony and 'strain' parameters [septal rebound, global longitudinal 'strain' (GLS), LBBB pattern, and mechanical dispersion). Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 27.5 ± 7%, and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) was 138 ± 77 mL, without differences between groups. Longitudinal analysis showed LVEF and LVESV improvement (P < 0.001), without between-group differences. At 12-month follow-up, adjusted mean LVEF was 46% with CSP (95% CI 42.2 and 49.3%) vs. 43% with BiVP (95% CI 39.6 and 45.8%), (P = 0.31), and LVESV was 80 mL (95% CI 55.3 and 104.5 mL) vs. 100 mL (95% CI 78.7 and 121.6 mL), respectively (P = 0.66). Longitudinal analysis showed a significant improvement of all dyssynchrony parameters and GLS over time (P < 0.001), without differences between groups. Baseline GLS significantly correlated with LVEF and LVESV at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: CSP and BiVP provided similar dyssynchrony and 'strain' correction over time. Baseline global longitudinal 'strain' predicted ventricular remodelling at 12-month follow-up.

Outcomes of mitral TEER in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) worsens in 10-15 % of heart failure (HF) patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) with Mitra-Clip (Abbot Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) therapy is associated with improved survival and decreased rates of hospitalization for HF in selected patients with secondary MR. Data on TEER outcomes in CRT-non-responders are limited. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate outcomes of mitral TEER with Mitra-Clip in CRT-non-responders. METHODS: Cochrane, Scopus, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for studies discussing outcomes of Mitra-Clip in CRT non-responders. Two reviewers were independently involved in screening studies and extracting relevant data. Individual study incidence rate estimates underwent logit transformation to calculate the weighted summary proportion under the random effect model. RESULTS: A total of eight reports met the inclusion criteria (439 patients). Mitra-Clip improved MR grade to ≤2+ in 83.8 % and 86.8 % of CRT non-responders at six months and one year, respectively. Symptomatic improvement (New York Heart Association class ≤II) was also found in 71 % and 78.1 % of CRT non-responders at six months and one year, respectively. The pooled overall incidence estimates of mortality at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 3.6 %, 9.2 %, 17.8 %, and 25.9 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: TEER with Mitra-Clip in patients with significant secondary MR who do not respond to CRT was associated with MR improvement, alleviation of symptoms, and mortality rates similar to those in the COAPT trial.

Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing is an alternative to biventricular pacing. In this study, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). OBJECTIVES: The study summarizes the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and concomitant LBBB. Recently LBBAP has been studied as a more physiological alternative to achieve CRT. METHOD: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify studies examining the role of LBBAP for CRT in heart failure. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 4 was used for meta-regression to examine variables that contribute to data heterogeneity. RESULT: Eighteen studies, 17 observational and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were examined. A total of 3906 HF patients who underwent CRT (2036 LBBAP vs. 1870 biventricular pacing [BVP]) were included. LBBAP was performed successfully in 90.4% of patients. Compared to baseline, LBBAP was associated with a reduction in QRS duration (MD: -47.23 ms 95% confidence interval [CI]: -53.45, -41.01), an increase in LVEF (MD: 15.22%, 95% CI: 13.5, 16.94), and a reduction in NYHA class (MD: -1.23, 95% CI: -1.41, -1.05). Compared to BVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in QRS duration (MD: -20.69 ms, 95% CI: -25.49, -15.88) and improvement in LVEF (MD: 4.78%, 95% CI: 3.30, 6.10). Furthermore, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.56) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.86) compared to BVP. CONCLUSION: LBBAP was associated with improved ventricular electrical synchrony compared to BVP, as well as better echocardiographic and clinical outcomes.