PURPOSE: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing (MultiPoint™ Pacing [MPP]) improves long-term LV reverse remodeling, though questions persist about how to program LV pacing vectors and delays. We evaluated if an empirical method of programming MPP vectors and delays between pacing pulses improved CRT response similar to pressure-volume loop (PVL) optimized MPP programming. METHODS: Patients undergoing CRT implant (Quadra Assura MP™ CRT-D and Quartet™ LV lead) received MPP with programmed settings optimized either by PVL measurements at implant (PVL-OPT group) or empirically determined by maximizing the spatial separation between the two cathodes and minimal delays between the three ventricular pacing pulses (MAX-SEP group). CRT response was prospectively defined as a reduction in end-systolic volume (ESV) of ≥ 15% relative to baseline at 6 months as determined by a blinded observer. RESULTS: Patient characteristics at baseline (NYHA II-III, ejection fraction [EF] 27 ± 6%, QRS 151 ± 17 ms) were not significantly different between the PVL-OPT (n = 27) and MAX-SEP (n = 26) groups. During the follow-up period, there were no differences in the number of patients requiring reprogramming due to phrenic nerve stimulation or a high threshold for PVL-OPT vs. MAX-SEP (5/27 [19%] vs. 7/26 [27%], p = 0.53). After 6 months, ESV reduction, EF increase, and CRT response rate (RR) were similar for PVL-OPT vs. MAX-SEP (ESV - 20 ± 11 vs. - 22 ± 11%, p = 0.59; EF + 10 ± 4 vs. + 9 ± 7%, p = 0.53; RR 20/27 [74%] vs. 21/26 [81%], p = 0.74), while fewer patients in the PVL-OPT group experienced NYHA class reduction ≥ 2 (4/27 [15%] vs.15/26 [58%], p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Both evaluated methods of MPP programming resulted in similar CRT outcomes. Empirical MPP programming by maximum spatial separation of LV cathodes may be an effective, simple, and non-invasive alternative to pressure-volume optimization.
PURPOSE: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing (MultiPoint™ Pacing [MPP]) improves long-term LV reverse remodeling, though questions persist about how to program LV pacing vectors and delays. We evaluated if an empirical method of programming MPP vectors and delays between pacing pulses improved CRT response similar to pressure-volume loop (PVL) optimized MPP programming. METHODS:Patients undergoing CRT implant (Quadra Assura MP™ CRT-D and Quartet™ LV lead) received MPP with programmed settings optimized either by PVL measurements at implant (PVL-OPT group) or empirically determined by maximizing the spatial separation between the two cathodes and minimal delays between the three ventricular pacing pulses (MAX-SEP group). CRT response was prospectively defined as a reduction in end-systolic volume (ESV) of ≥ 15% relative to baseline at 6 months as determined by a blinded observer. RESULTS:Patient characteristics at baseline (NYHA II-III, ejection fraction [EF] 27 ± 6%, QRS 151 ± 17 ms) were not significantly different between the PVL-OPT (n = 27) and MAX-SEP (n = 26) groups. During the follow-up period, there were no differences in the number of patients requiring reprogramming due to phrenic nerve stimulation or a high threshold for PVL-OPT vs. MAX-SEP (5/27 [19%] vs. 7/26 [27%], p = 0.53). After 6 months, ESV reduction, EF increase, and CRT response rate (RR) were similar for PVL-OPT vs. MAX-SEP (ESV - 20 ± 11 vs. - 22 ± 11%, p = 0.59; EF + 10 ± 4 vs. + 9 ± 7%, p = 0.53; RR 20/27 [74%] vs. 21/26 [81%], p = 0.74), while fewer patients in the PVL-OPT group experienced NYHA class reduction ≥ 2 (4/27 [15%] vs.15/26 [58%], p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Both evaluated methods of MPP programming resulted in similar CRT outcomes. Empirical MPP programming by maximum spatial separation of LV cathodes may be an effective, simple, and non-invasive alternative to pressure-volume optimization.
Authors: Valter Bianchi; Alfonso R Martiniello; Jan Mangual; Vincenzo Tavoletta; Gianni Pedrizzetti; Giovanni Tonti; Valentina Maria Caso; Pio Caso; Antonio D'Onofrio Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 1.900