Comparison of De Novo versus Upgrade Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; Focused on the Upgrade for Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gwag HB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5447099 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is an important cause of heart failure in patients with a right ventricular pacing burden. Recent evidence suggests that an upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may confer benefit in PICM.ObjectiveTo assess the extent and identify predictors of improvement following upgrade to CRT in patients with PICM.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 43 patients undergoing CRT upgrade for PICM over the 10-year period of 2011 to 2021 at our center. All patients with PICM who underwent device upgrade from a dual- or single-chamber ventricular pacemaker to CRT were included. PICM was defined as a decrease of ≥10% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), resulting in an LVEF <50% among patients with ≥20% Right ventricular pacing burden without an alternative cause for cardiomyopathy.ResultsLVEF significantly improved from 28.7% preupgrade to 44.3% post-CRT upgrade (P < .01). Of 37 patients with severe LV dysfunction, 34 (91.9%) improved to an LVEF >35% and 13 (35.1%) improved to an LVEF >50%. The LV end-diastolic diameter decreased from 5.9 cm preupgrade to 5.4 cm postupgrade (P < .01). Using linear regression, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use was associated with significant LVEF improvement (+7.21%, P = .05). We observed a low rate of complications, and 1 in 4 CRT upgrades required venoplasty (n = 10 of 43, 23.3%).ConclusionWe provide further evidence for the benefit of CRT upgrade in the management of patients with PICM.
| S-EPMC10134389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with conventional pacemakers or implanted defibrillators are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to summarize the available evidences regarding the clinical benefits of upgrade procedures. A systematic literature search was performed from studies published between 2006 and 2017 in order to compare the outcome of CRT upgrade vs. de novo implantations. Outcome data on all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class, QRS narrowing and echocardiographic parameters were analysed. A total of 16 reports were analysed comprising 489,568 CRT recipients, of whom 468,205 patients underwent de novo and 21,363 upgrade procedures. All-cause mortality was similar after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88-1.60, p = 0.27). The risk of heart failure was also similar in both groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.32, p = 0.81). There was no significant difference in clinical response after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations in terms of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (?EF de novo - 6.85% vs. upgrade - 9.35%; p = 0.235), NYHA class (?NYHA de novo - 0.74 vs. upgrade - 0.70; p = 0.737) and QRS narrowing (?QRS de novo - 9.6 ms vs. upgrade - 29.5 ms; p = 0.485). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available studies reports that CRT upgrade is associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality compared to de novo resynchronization therapy. Benefits on reverse remodelling and functional capacity improved similarly in both groups suggesting that CRT upgrade may be safely and effectively offered in routine practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:Prospero Database-CRD42016043747.
| S-EPMC5756552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsPatients with a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, limited comprehensive data are available regarding their long-term outcomes.Methods and resultsOur retrospective registry included 2524 patients [1977 (78%) de novo, 547 (22%) upgrade patients] with mild to severe symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and QRS ≥ 130ms. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation (HTX), or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation; secondary endpoints were death from any cause and post-procedural complications. In our cohort, upgrade patients were older [71 (65-77) vs. 67 (59-73) years; P < 0.001], were less frequently females (20% vs. 27%; P = 0.002) and had more comorbidities than de novo patients. During the median follow-up time of 3.7 years, 1091 (55%) de novo and 342 (63%) upgrade patients reached the primary endpoint. In univariable analysis, upgrade patients exhibited a higher risk of mortality/HTX/LVAD than the de novo group [hazard ratio (HR): 1.41; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-1.61; P < 0.001]. However, this difference disappeared after adjusting for covariates (adjusted HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.86-1.48; P = 0.402), or propensity score matching (propensity score-matched HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.95-1.29; P = 0.215). From device-related complications, lead dysfunction (3.1% vs. 1%; P < 0.001) and pocket infections (3.7% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.014) were more frequent in the upgrade group compared to de novo patients.ConclusionIn our retrospective analysis, upgrade patients had a higher risk of all-cause mortality than de novo patients, which might be attributable to their more significant comorbidity burden. The occurrence of lead dysfunction and pocket infections was more frequent in the upgrade group.
| S-EPMC8350864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the acute improvement of electrical and mechanical synchrony, and hemodynamics between LBBP and BVP in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block.MethodsLBBP and BVP were performed and compared in a crossover fashion in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation. Electrical synchrony was assessed by QRS duration and area, mechanical synchrony by the SD of time to peak velocity of 12 left ventricular segments (Ts-SD) and interventricular mechanical delay, and hemodynamics by the maximum rate of left ventricular pressure rise (dP/dtmax).ResultsTwenty-one patient with heart failure and left bundle branch block (mean age 67±10 years, 48% male, and 90% nonischemic cause) were included. Both LBBP and BVP provided significant improvements in electrical and mechanical synchrony, and hemodynamics compared to the baseline. Compared with BVP, LBBP achieved a larger reduction in QRS duration (-11 ms [95% CI, -17 to -4 ms]; P=0.003) and QRS area (-85 µVs [95% CI, -113 to -56 µVs]; P<0.001); LBBP achieved a greater decrease in Ts-SD (-14 ms [95% CI, -21 to -7 ms]; P=0.001), with no significant difference in interventricular mechanical delay (-2 ms [95% CI, -13 to 8 ms]; P=0.63). The increase in dP/dtmax from LBBP was significantly higher than that from BVP (6% [95% CI, 2%-9%]; P=0.002).ConclusionsLBBP delivers greater acute electrical and mechanical resynchronization and hemodynamic improvement than BVP in predominantly nonischemic heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT04505384.
| S-EPMC9665950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in treating advanced heart failure (HF), but data describing benefits and long-term outcomes for upgrades from a preexisting device are limited. This study sought to compare long-term outcomes in de novo CRT implants with those eligible for CRT with a prior device.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study using data from a provincial registry (2002-2015). Patients were included if they had mild-moderate HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, and QRS duration ≥ 130 ms. Patients were classified as de novo CRT or upgraded to CRT from a prior device. Outcomes were mortality and composite mortality and HF hospitalization.ResultsThere were 342 patients included in the study. In a multivariate model, patients in the upgraded cohort (n = 233) had a higher 5-year mortality rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-5.15; P = 0.0005) compared with the de novo cohort (n = 109) and higher composite mortality and HF hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-4.37; P = 0.0003).ConclusionsImplantation of de novo CRTs was associated with lower mortality and HF hospitalization compared with upgraded CRTs from preexisting devices. It is unknown whether these differences are due to the timing of CRT implementation or other clinical factors. Further work in this area may be helpful to determine how to improve outcomes for these patients.
| S-EPMC7063653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Experimental evidence indicates that left ventricular ( LV ) apical pacing is hemodynamically superior to nonapical LV pacing. Some studies have shown that an LV apical lead position is unfavorable in cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to determine whether an apical LV lead position influences cardiac mortality after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Methods and Results In this retrospective observational study, the primary end point of cardiac mortality was assessed in relation to longitudinal (basal, midventricular, or apical) and circumferential (anterior, lateral, or posterior) LV lead positions, as well as right ventricular (apical or septal), assigned using fluoroscopy. Lead positions were assessed in 1189 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation over 15 years. After a median follow-up of 6.0 years (interquartile range: 4.4-7.7 years), an apical LV lead position was associated with lower cardiac mortality than a nonapical position (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.99) after covariate adjustment. There were no differences in total mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Death from pump failure was lower with apical than nonapical positions (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.94). Compared with a basal position, an apical LV position was also associated with lower risk of sudden cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.93). No differences emerged between circumferential LV lead positions or right ventricular positions with respect to any end point. Conclusions In recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy, an apical LV lead position was associated with better long-term cardiac survival than a nonapical position. This effect was due to a lower risk of pump failure and sudden cardiac death.
| S-EPMC6201398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Phrenic nerve (PN) stimulation (PNS) frequently limits cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Yet, pacing strategies to minimize PNS have not been systematically compared. We propose to: (1) compare different pacing strategies to minimize PNS in CRT and (2) evaluate differences between PN and left ventricular (LV) capture thresholds among LV pacing configurations.PN and LV thresholds were obtained using 6 LV configurations in 28 patients with any PNS during CRT implantation or replacement. Incidence of PNS was compared in all LV configurations by programming pacing output to (1) One Volt (V) above LV threshold, (2) triple pulse width (PW) at LV threshold, and (3) 1.5 times LV threshold for each patient. PN thresholds and PN strength-duration curves were statistically different between configurations (P < 0.05). Ring?RVcoil and Ring?Can had the largest difference between PN and LV thresholds. Pacing output programmed to 1.5 times LV threshold, 1 V above LV threshold, and triple PW at LV threshold had similar probability of PNS between LV configurations. However, 1 V above LV threshold and triple PW at LV threshold frequently resulted in poor (< 30%) LV capture safety margin (14-43% and 53-68%, respectively). Freedom from PNS (programmed output at twice LV threshold) was found in 88%, 84%, and 52% with 6, 3, or 2 available LV configurations, respectively.Multiple LV pacing configurations marginally increase the probability of avoiding PNS by electronic reprogramming. Pacing output programmed to 1.5 times LV threshold is an additional alternative to minimize PNS when electronic reprogramming options are limited.
| S-EPMC4583217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHis-bundle pacing (HBP) alone may become an alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) utilizing right ventricular apical (RVA) and left ventricular (LV) pacing (BiVRVA+LV) in selected patients, but the effects of CRT utilizing HBP and LV pacing (BiVHB+LV) on cardiac resynchronization and heart failure (HF) are unclear.Case summaryWe presented two patients with inotrope-dependent end-stage HF in whom the upgrade from conventional BiVRVA+LV to BiVHB+LV pacing by the addition of a lead for HBP improved their HF status. Patient 1 was a 32-year-old man with lamin A/C cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and complete atrioventricular (AV) block. Patient 2 was a 70-year-old man with ischaemic cardiomyopathy complicated by AV block and worsening of HF resulting from ablation for ventricular tachycardia storm. The HF status of both patients improved dramatically following the upgrade from BiVRVA+LV to BiVHB+LV pacing.DiscussionEnd-stage HF patients suffer from diffuse intraventricular conduction defect not only in the LV but also in the right ventricle (RV). The resulting dyssynchrony may not be sufficiently corrected by conventional BiVRVA+LV pacing or HBP alone. Right ventricular apical pacing itself may also impair RV synchrony. An upgrade to BiVHB+LV pacing could be beneficial in patients who become non-responsive to conventional BiV pacing as the His-Purkinje conduction defect progresses.
| S-EPMC7793217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate left ventricular mechanical activation pattern by speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) as a predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure. Methods: Echocardiography was performed during no pacing, right ventricular pacing (RVP), biventricular pacing (BVP) and multipolar pacing (MPP) immediately after CRT implantation in 16 patients at a single centre. Seven patients were diagnosed as responders and 9 patients as non-responders after 6 months of standard CRT pacing. All had adequate short axis views, and 1 CRT responder and 2 CRT non-responders had limited longitudinal views. Results: Longitudinal and circumferential global strain (GS) and global strain rate (GSR) or their change analysis, did not yield any CRT response prediction. However, the longitudinal BVP/RVP GS ratio was significantly higher in the responder group (1.32 ± 0.2%, 2.0 ± 0.4% and 1.9 ± 0.4%), compared with the non-responder group (1.06 ± 0.2%, 1.1 ± 0.4% and 1.2 ± 0.4%) in the apical two-chamber, APLAX and four-chamber views, respectively. Similarly, the longitudinal BVP/RVP GSR at active systolic phase (GSRs) was significantly higher in the responder group (1.9 ± 0.9% and 1.7 ± 0.4%) compared with the non-responder group (1.0 ± 0.4% and 1.1 ± 0.2%) in the apical APLAX and four-chamber views, respectively. Measurements of the strain delay index showed predictive power regarding CRT response in non-paced patients. Conclusion: Post implantation, longitudinal BVP/RVP GS and GSRs ratios of 1.4% and above may be useful as a CRT response prediction tool. Furthermore, our findings support the usefulness of strain delay index prior to CRT implantation in non-paced patients.
| S-EPMC9524619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A significant number of right bundle branch block (RBBB) patients receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), despite lack of evidence for benefit in this patient group. His bundle (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel CRT delivery methods, but their effect on RBBB remains understudied. We aim to compare pacing-induced electrical synchrony during conventional CRT, HBP, and LBP in RBBB patients with different conduction disturbances, and to investigate whether alternative ways of delivering LBP improve response to pacing. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart geometries each including a His-Purkinje system with proximal right bundle branch block (RBBB). We simulated RBBB combined with left anterior and posterior fascicular blocks (LAFB and LPFB). Additionally, RBBB was simulated in the presence of slow conduction velocity (CV) in the myocardium, left ventricular (LV) or right ventricular (RV) His-Purkinje system, and whole His-Purkinje system. Electrical synchrony was measured by the shortest interval to activate 90% of the ventricles (BIVAT-90). Compared to baseline, HBP significantly improved activation times for RBBB alone (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 42.6 ± 3.8 ms, p < 0.01), with LAFB (69.5 ± 5.0 ms vs. 58.1 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. 62.9 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with slow myocardial CV (119.4 ± 11.4 ms vs. 97.2 ± 10.0 ms, p < 0.01) or slow CV in the whole His-Purkinje system (102.3 ± 7.0 ms vs. 75.5 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). LBP was only effective in RBBB cases if combined with anodal capture of the RV septum myocardium (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 48.2 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). CRT significantly reduced activation times in RBBB in the presence of severely slow RV His-Purkinje CV (95.1 ± 7.9 ms vs. 84.3 ± 9.3 ms, p < 0.01) and LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. CRT: 72.9 ± 8.6 ms, p < 0.01). Both CRT and HBP were ineffective with severely slow CV in the LV His-Purkinje system. HBP is effective in RBBB patients with otherwise healthy myocardium and Purkinje system, while CRT and LBP are ineffective. Response to LBP improves when LBP is combined with RV septum anodal capture. CRT is better than HBP only in patients with severely slow CV in the RV His-Purkinje system, while CV slowing of the whole His-Purkinje system and the myocardium favor HBP over CRT.
| S-EPMC9532840 | biostudies-literature