Dataset Information

Rationale and design of the AdaptResponse trial: a prospective randomized study of cardiac resynchronization therapy with preferential adaptive left ventricular-only pacing.

ABSTRACT: The AdaptResponse trial is designed to test the hypothesis that preferential adaptive left ventricular-only pacing with the AdaptivCRT® algorithm reduces the incidence of the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and intervention for heart failure (HF) decompensation, compared with conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), among patients with a CRT indication, left bundle branch block (LBBB) and normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction. The AdaptResponse study is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicentre, clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02205359), conducted at up to 200 centres worldwide. Following enrolment and baseline assessment, eligible subjects will be implanted with a CRT system containing the AdaptivCRT algorithm, and randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either a treatment ('AdaptivCRT') or control ('Conventional CRT') group. The study is designed to observe a primary endpoint in 1100 patients ('event-driven') and approximately 3000 patients will be randomized. The primary endpoint is the composite of all-cause mortality and intervention for HF decompensation; secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, intervention for HF decompensation, clinical composite score (CCS) at 6 months, atrial fibrillation, quality of life measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), health outcome measured by the EQ-5D instrument, all-cause readmission after a HF admission, and cost-effectiveness. The AdaptResponse clinical trial is powered to assess clinical endpoints and is expected to provide definitive evidence on the incremental utility of AdaptivCRT-enhanced CRT systems.

SUBMITTER: Filippatos G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5606499 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rationale and design of the AdaptResponse trial: a prospective randomized study of cardiac resynchronization therapy with preferential adaptive left ventricular-only pacing.

Filippatos Gerasimos G Birnie David D Gold Michael R MR Gerritse Bart B Hersi Ahmad A Jacobs Sandra S Kusano Kengo K Leclercq Christophe C Mullens Wilfried W Wilkoff Bruce L BL

European journal of heart failure 20170701 7

The AdaptResponse trial is designed to test the hypothesis that preferential adaptive left ventricular-only pacing with the AdaptivCRT<sup>®</sup> algorithm reduces the incidence of the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and intervention for heart failure (HF) decompensation, compared with conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), among patients with a CRT indication, left bundle branch block (LBBB) and normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction. The AdaptResponse study is a prosp ...[more]

PMID: 28708290

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThis registry was created to describe the experience of 76 Italian centres with a large cohort of recipients of multipoint pacing (MPP) capable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices.Methods and resultsA total of 507 patients in whom these devices had been successfully implanted were enrolled between August 2013 and May 2015. We analysed: (i) current clinical practices for the management of such patients, and (ii) the impact of MPP on heart failure clinical composite response and on the absolute change in ejection fraction (EF) at 6 months. Multipoint pacing was programmed to 'ON' in 46% of patients before discharge. Methods of optimizing MPP programming were most commonly based on either the greatest narrowing of the QRS complex (38%) or the electrical delays between the electrodes (34%). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were evaluated in 232 patients. These patients were divided into two groups according to whether MPP was programmed to 'ON' (n = 94) or 'OFF' (n = 138) at the time of discharge. At 6 months, EF was significantly higher in the MPP group than in the biventricular-pacing group (39.1 ± 9.6 vs. 34.7 ± 7.6%; P < 0.001). Even after adjustments, early MPP activation remained an independent predictor of absolute increase in LVEF of ≥5% (odds ratio 2.5; P = 0.001). At 6 months, an improvement in clinical composite score was recorded in a greater proportion of patients with MPP-ON than in controls (56 vs. 38%; P = 0.009). On comparing optimal MPP and conventional vectors, QRS was also seen to have decreased significantly (P < 0.001).ConclusionThis study provides information that is essential in order to deal with the expected increase in the number of patients receiving MPP devices in the coming years. The results revealed different practices among centres, and establishing the optimal programming that can maximize the benefit of MPP remains a challenging issue. Compared with conventional CRT, MPP improved clinical status and resulted in an additional increase in EF.Clinical trial registrationhttp://www.clinicaltrial.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT02606071.

Project description:AimsThe purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB).Methods and resultsOne hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P < 0.001). Higher absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and △LVEF was also achieved in LBBP-CRT than BVP-aCRT at 6-month (47.58 ± 12.02% vs. 41.24 ± 10.56%, P = 0.008; 18.52 ± 13.19% vs. 12.89 ± 9.73%, P = 0.020) and 1-year follow-up (49.10 ± 10.43% vs. 43.62 ± 11.33%, P = 0.021; 20.90 ± 11.80% vs. 15.20 ± 9.98%, P = 0.015, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in response rate between two groups while higher super-response rate was observed in LBBP-CRT as compared to BVP-aCRT at 6 months (53.06% vs. 36.59%, P = 0.016) and 12 months (61.22% vs. 39.22%, P = 0.028) during follow-up. The pacing threshold was lower in LBBP-CRT at implant and during 1-year follow-up (both P < 0.001). Procedure-related complications and adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different in two groups.ConclusionsThe feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.

Project description:Background The hemodynamic effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are uncharacterized. We aimed to quantify the hemodynamic effects of different ventricular pacing configurations in patients with LVADs, focusing on short-term changes in load-independent right ventricular (RV) contractility. Methods and Results Patients with LVADs underwent right heart catheterization during spontaneous respiration without sedation and with pressures recorded at end expiration. Right heart catheterization was performed at different pacemaker configurations (biventricular pacing, left ventricular pacing, RV pacing, and unpaced conduction) in a randomly generated sequence with >3 minutes between configuration change and hemodynamic assessment. The right heart catheterization operator was blinded to the sequence. RV maximal change in pressure over time normalized to instantaneous pressure was calculated from digitized hemodynamic waveforms, consistent with a previously validated protocol. Fifteen patients with LVADs who were in sinus rhythm were included. Load-independent RV contractility, as assessed by RV maximal change in pressure over time normalized to instantaneous pressure, was higher in biventricular pacing compared with unpaced conduction (15.7±7.6 versus 11.0±4.0 s-1; P=0.003). Thermodilution cardiac output was higher in biventricular pacing compared with unpaced conduction (4.48±0.7 versus 4.38±0.8 L/min; P=0.05). There were no significant differences in heart rate, ventricular filling pressures, or atrioventricular valvular regurgitation across all pacing configurations. Conclusions Biventricular pacing acutely improves load-independent RV contractility in patients with LVADs. Even in these patients with mechanical left ventricular unloading via LVAD who were relative pacing nonresponders (required LVAD support despite cardiac resynchronization therapy), biventricular pacing was acutely beneficial to RV contractility.

Dataset Information

Rationale and design of the AdaptResponse trial: a prospective randomized study of cardiac resynchronization therapy with preferential adaptive left ventricular-only pacing.

Publications

Rationale and design of the AdaptResponse trial: a prospective randomized study of cardiac resynchronization therapy with preferential adaptive left ventricular-only pacing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets