Apical vs. non-apical right ventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure. The optimal site of right ventricular (RV) stimulation in CRT has not been established. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials and observational studies comparing the mid- and long-term effects of RV apical (RVA) and non-apical (RVNA) pacing on CRT outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for studies evaluating RVA vs. RVNA pacing in CRT with regards to left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction, functional status improvement (defined as ≥1 New York Heart Association class improvement), and the clinical outcome of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. Effect estimates [standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)] were pooled using random-effect models. RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising 2670 patients (1655 with an apical and 1015 with a non-apical RV lead position) were included. In meta-analyses, LVESV reduction and functional status improvement were similar in patients with RVA and RVNA pacing (SMD 0.13, 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.50, P = 0.48; OR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.45, P = 0.60, respectively). Data regarding mortality and hospitalizations could not be pooled due to a small number of relevant studies with significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that in CRT patients the effects of RVA or RVNA pacing on LV remodelling and functional status are similar. Mortality and morbidity outcomes with different RV lead positions should be further assessed in randomized clinical trials.

A comparison of left ventricular endocardial, multisite, and multipolar epicardial cardiac resynchronization: an acute haemodynamic and electroanatomical study.

AIMS: Alternative forms of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), including biventricular endocardial (BV-Endo) and multisite epicardial pacing (MSP), have been developed to improve response. It is unclear which form of stimulation is optimal. We aimed to compare the acute haemodynamic response (AHR) and electrophysiological effects of BV-Endo with MSP via two separate coronary sinus (CS) leads or a single-quadripolar CS lead. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifteen patients with a previously implanted CRT system received a second temporary CS lead and left ventricular (LV) endocardial catheter. A pressure wire and non-contact mapping array were placed into the LV cavity to measure LVdP/dtmax and perform electroanatomical mapping. Conventional CRT, BV-Endo, and MSP were then performed (MSP-1 via two epicardial leads and MSP-2 via a single-quadripolar lead). The best overall AHR was found using BV-Endo pacing with a 19.6 ± 13.6% increase in AHR at the optimal endocardial site over baseline (P < 0.001). There was an increase in LVdP/dtmax with MSP-1 and MSP-2 compared with conventional CRT, but this was not statistically significant. Biventricular endocardial pacing from the optimal site was significantly superior to conventional CRT (P = 0.039). The AHR achieved when BV-Endo pacing was highly site specific. Within individuals, the best pacing modality varied and was affected by the underlying substrate. Left ventricular activation times did not predict the optimal haemodynamic configuration. CONCLUSION: Biventricular endocardial pacing and not MSP was superior to conventional CRT, but was highly site specific. Within individuals, however, different methods of stimulation are optimal and may need to be tailored to the underlying substrate.

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy optimisation strategies: systematic classification, detailed analysis, minimum standards and a roadmap for development and testing.

In this article an international group of CRT specialists presents a comprehensive classification system for present and future schemes for optimising CRT. This system is neutral to the measurement technology used, but focuses on little-discussed quantitative physiological requirements. We then present a rational roadmap for reliable cost-effective development and evaluation of schemes. A widely recommended approach for AV optimisation is to visually select the ideal pattern of transmitral Doppler flow. Alternatively, one could measure a variable (such as Doppler velocity time integral) and "pick the highest". More complex would be to make measurements across a range of settings and "fit a curve". In this report we provide clinicians with a critical approach to address any recommendations presented to them, as they may be many, indistinct and conflicting. We present a neutral scientific analysis of each scheme, and equip the reader with simple tools for critical evaluation. Optimisation protocols should deliver: (a) singularity, with only one region of optimality rather than several; (b) blinded test-retest reproducibility; (c) plausibility; (d) concordance between independent methods; and (e) transparency, with all steps open to scrutiny. This simple information is still not available for many optimisation schemes. Clinicians developing the habit of asking about each property in turn will find it easier to win now down the broad range of protocols currently promoted. Expectation of a sophisticated enquiry from the clinical community will encourage optimisation protocol-designers to focus on testing early (and cheaply) the basic properties that are vital for any chance of long term efficacy.