Dataset Information

In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study.

ABSTRACT: Recent efforts to increase CRT response by multiSPOT pacing (MSP) from multiple bipols on the same left ventricular lead are still inconclusive.The Left Ventricular (LV) MultiSPOTpacing for CRT (iSPOT) study compared the acute hemodynamic response of MSP pacing by using 3 electrodes on a quadripolar lead compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BiV).Patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) underwent an acute hemodynamic study to determine the %change in LV+dP/dtmax from baseline atrial pacing compared to the following configurations: BiV pacing with the LV lead in a one of lateral veins, while pacing from the distal, mid, or proximal electrode and all 3 electrodes together (i.e. MSP). All measurements were repeated 4 times at 5 different atrioventricular delays. We also measured QRS-width and individual Q-LV durations.Protocol was completed in 24 patients, all with LBBB (QRS width 171±20 ms) and 58% ischemic aetiology. The percentage change in LV+dP/dtmax for MSP pacing was 31.0±3.3% (Mean±SE), which was not significantly superior to any BiV pacing configuration: 28.9±3.2% (LV-distal), 28.3±2.7% (LV-mid), and 29.5±3.0% (LV-prox), respectively. Correlation between LV+dP/dtmax and either QRS-width or Q-LV ratio was poor.In patients with LBBB MultiSPOT LV pacing demonstrated comparable improvement in contractility to best conventional BiV pacing. Optimization of atrioventricular delay is important for the best performance for both BiV and MultiSPOT pacing configurations.ClinicalTrials.gov NTC01883141.

SUBMITTER: Sterlinski M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4849737 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study.

Sterliński Maciej M Sokal Adam A Lenarczyk Radosław R Van Heuverswyn Frederic F Rinaldi C Aldo CA Vanderheyden Marc M Khalameizer Vladimir V Francis Darrel D Heynens Joeri J Stegemann Berthold B Cornelussen Richard R

PloS one 20160428 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Recent efforts to increase CRT response by multiSPOT pacing (MSP) from multiple bipols on the same left ventricular lead are still inconclusive.<h4>Aim</h4>The Left Ventricular (LV) MultiSPOTpacing for CRT (iSPOT) study compared the acute hemodynamic response of MSP pacing by using 3 electrodes on a quadripolar lead compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BiV).<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) underwent an acute hemodynamic study to deter ...[more]

PMID: 27124724

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Little is known about the efficacy of permanent left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of LBBAP on mechanical synchronization and myocardial work (MW) in heart failure (HF) patients and to compare LBBAP with biventricular pacing (BVP). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study. From February 2018 to January 2021, 62 consecutive HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 35%) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) who underwent LBBAP or BVP were enrolled in this study. Echocardiograms and electrocardiograms and were conducted before and 3-6 months after implantation. Intra- and interventricular synchronization were assessed using two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI). The left ventricular pressure-strain loop was obtained by combining left ventricular strain with non-invasive blood pressure to evaluate mechanical efficiency. Results: The echocardiographic response rates were 68.6 and 88.9% in the BVP and LBBAP groups, respectively. Left bundle branch area pacing resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 177.1 ± 16.7 to 113.0 ± 18.4 ms, P < 0.001) and improvement in LVEF (from 29.9 ± 4.8 to 47.1 ± 8.3%, P < 0.001). The global wasted work (GWW) (410.3 ± 166.6 vs. 283.0 ± 129.6 mmHg%, P = 0.001) and global work efficiency (GWE) (64.6 ± 7.8 vs. 80.5 ± 5.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly improved along with shorter peak strain dispersion (PSD) (143.4 ± 45.2 vs. 92.6 ± 35.1 ms, P < 0.001) and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) (56.4 ± 28.5 vs. 28.9 ± 19.0 ms, P < 0.001), indicating its efficiency in improving mechanical synchronization. In comparison with BVP, LBBAP delivered greater improvement of QRS narrowing (-64.1 ± 18.9 vs. -32.5 ± 22.3 ms, P < 0.001) and better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. Conclusions: Left bundle branch area pacing was effective in improving cardiac function, mechanical synchronization, and mechanical efficiency and may be a promising alternative cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Project description:Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing modality with stable pacing parameters and a narrow-paced QRS duration. We compared heart failure (HF) hospitalization events and echocardiographic measures between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Methods and Results: This multicenter observational study prospectively recruited consecutive AVB patients requiring ventricular pacing in five centers if they received LBBAP or RVP and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%. Data on electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, echocardiographic measurements, device complications, and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary outcome was first episode hospitalization for HF or upgrade to biventricular pacing. LBBAP was successful in 235 of 246 patients (95.5%), while 120 patients received RVP. During a mean of 11.4 ± 2.7 months of follow-up, the ventricular pacing burden was comparable (83.9 ± 35.1 vs. 85.7 ± 30.0%), while the mean LVEF differed significantly (62.6 ± 4.6 vs. 57.8 ± 11.4%) between the LBBAP and RVP groups. Patients with LBBAP had significantly lower occurrences of HF hospitalization and upgrading to biventricular pacing than patients with RVP (2.6 vs. 10.8%, P <0.001), and differences in primary outcome between LBBAP and RVP were mainly observed in patients with ventricular pacing >40% or with baseline LVEF <60%. The primary outcome was independently associated with LBBAP (adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04-0.55), previous myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 6.82, 95% CI: 1.23-37.5), and baseline LVEF (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.96). Conclusion: Permanent LBBAP might reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or upgrade to biventricular pacing compared with RVP in AVB patients requiring a high burden of ventricular pacing. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03851315; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique Identifier: ChiCTR2100043296.

Dataset Information

In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study.

Publications

In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure