Lack of clinical predictors of optimal V-V delay in patients with cardiac resynchronization devices
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure (HF), left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction ≤ 35% and a QRS on the surface electrocardiogram of ≥130 msec. Device optimization is often performed, adjusting the timing of RV and LV stimulation to produce a pacing sequence that yields the best global cardiac performance. However, no standard guidelines exist for optimization and many invasive and non-invasive techniques have been employed with mixed results. The aim of the present study was to determine whether there are any clinical predictors of the optimal V-V settings in patients implanted with CRT devices.
Methods and results
We prospectively evaluated 47 consecutive patients with HF who were referred to our device optimization clinic. The mean patient age was 64.9 ± 12.7 years. Patients were in both sinus rhythm (83%) and atrial fibrillation. Prior to device implant, 51% of patients had left bundle branch block (LBBB), 17% had intra-ventricular conduction delay (IVCD) and 21% were RV paced. Sixty-two percent were male, the mean QRS duration was 152 ± 29 ms, mean LVEF 26 ± 8% and 60% had a non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Overall, 82% of patients required sequential pacing with 69% requiring LV pre-excitation to produce the best global cardiac function as determined by aortic velocity time integrals (VTI). In our cohort, none of the clinical characteristics evaluated, including etiology of the cardiomyopathy, QRS duration, LVEF, pre-implant rhythm or AV delay were predictive of an optimal simultaneous or sequential V-V setting.
None of the clinical variables tested in our analysis predicted optimal RV-LV settings. Our results suggest that individual optimization and programming of V-V settings is necessary. The inability to predict optimal settings likely reflects the unique characteristics of each patient and supports the need for individualized programming of each device.
KeywordsCardiac resynchronization therapy Sequential BiV pacing V-V optimization
- 6.Richardson, M., Freemantle, N., Calvert, M. J., Cleland, J. G., & Tavazzi, L. (2007). Predictors and treatment response with cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure characterized by dyssynchrony: a pre-defined analysis from the CARE-HF trial. European Heart Journal, 28, 1827–1834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Rao, R. K., Kumar, U. N., Schafer, J., Viloria, E., De Lurgio, D., & Foster, E. (2007). Reduced ventricular volumes and improved systolic function with cardiac resynchronization therapy: a randomized trial comparing simultaneous biventricular pacing, sequential biventricular pacing, and left ventricular pacing. Circulation, 115, 2136–2144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Boriani, G., Muller, C. P., Seidl, K. H., et al. (2006). 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. American Heart Journal, 151, 1050–1058.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Gorcsan 3rd, J., Abraham, T., Agler, D. A., et al. (2008). Echocardiography for cardiac resynchronization therapy: recommendations for performance and reporting—a report from the American society of echocardiography dyssynchrony writing group endorsed by the heart rhythm society. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography, 21, 191–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Bleeker, G. B., Yu, C. M., Nihoyannopoulos, P., et al. (2007). Optimal use of echocardiography in cardiac resynchronisation therapy. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 93, 1339–1350.Google Scholar
- 20.Sutton, M. G., Plappert, T., Hilpisch, K. E., Abraham, W. T., Hayes, D. L., & Chinchoy, E. (2006). Sustained reverse left ventricular structural remodeling with cardiac resynchronization at one year is a function of etiology: quantitative Doppler echocardiographic evidence from the multicenter insync randomized clinical evaluation (MIRACLE). Circulation, 113, 266–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Gabriel, R. S., Bakshi, T. K., Scott, A. G., et al. (2007). Reliability of echocardiographic indices of dyssynchrony. Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.), 24, 40–46.Google Scholar
- 27.Ghio, S. (2007). Results of the predictors of response to CRT (PROSPECT) trial. Hotline Late Breaking Clinical Trials. Vienna, Austria: European Society of Cardiology.Google Scholar