Acute electrical and hemodynamic effects of multisite left ventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in the dyssynchronous canine heart.

BACKGROUND Multisite left ventricular (multi-LV) epicardial pacing has been proposed as an alternative to conventional single-site LV (single-LV) pacing to increase the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy. OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of multi-LV versus single-LV pacing in dogs with left bundle branch block (LBBB). METHODS Studies were performed in 9 anaesthetized dogs with chronic LBBB using 7 LV epicardial electrodes. Each electrode was tested alone and in combination with 1, 2, 3, and 6 other electrodes, the sequence of which was chosen on the basis of practical real-time electrical mapping to determine the site of the latest activation. LV total activation time (LVTAT) and dispersion of repolarization (DRep) were measured by using approximately 100 electrodes around the ventricles. LV contractility was assessed as the maximum derivative of left ventricular pressure (LVdP/dtmax ). RESULTS Single-LV pacing provided, on average, a -4.0% ± 9.3% change in LVTAT and 0.2% ± 13.7% change in DRep. Multi-LV pacing markedly decreased both LVTAT and DRep in a stepwise fashion to reach -41.3% ± 5% (P < .001 for overall comparison) and -14.2% ± 19.5% (P < .02 for overall comparison) in the septuple-LV pacing configuration, respectively. Single-LV pacing provided a mean increase of 10.7% ± 7.7% in LVdP/dtmax. LVdP/dtmax incrementally increased by the addition of pacing electrodes to 16.4% ± 8.7% (P < .001 for overall comparison). High response to single-LV pacing could not be improved further during multi-LV pacing. CONCLUSIONS Compared with single-LV pacing, multi-LV pacing can considerably reduce both LVTAT and DRep in dogs with LBBB, but the improvement in contractility is limited to conditions where single-LV pacing provides suboptimal improvement. Further studies are warranted to determine whether these acute effects translate in antiarrhythmic properties and better long-term outcomes.

[1]  Frits W. Prinzen,et al.  Non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy: the magnitude of the problem and the issues. , 2011, Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society.

[2]  C. Leclercq,et al.  Left ventricular endocardial or triventricular pacing to optimize cardiac resynchronization therapy in a chronic canine model of ischemic heart failure. , 2012, American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology.

[3]  Nicolas Derval,et al.  Optimizing hemodynamics in heart failure patients by systematic screening of left ventricular pacing sites: the lateral left ventricular wall and the coronary sinus are rarely the best sites. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  Frits W Prinzen,et al.  Non-Responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy – The Magnitude of the Problem and the Issues – , 2011 .

[5]  N. El-Sherif,et al.  Reentrant ventricular rhythms in the late myocardial infarction period: prevention of reentry by dual stimulation during basic rhythm. , 1988, Circulation.

[6]  Christophe Leclercq,et al.  A randomized comparison of triple-site versus dual-site ventricular stimulation in patients with congestive heart failure. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  P. Lambiase,et al.  A randomized double‐blind crossover trial of triventricular versus biventricular pacing in heart failure , 2012, European journal of heart failure.

[8]  J. Spinelli,et al.  Cardiac pacing in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block: impact of pacing site for optimizing left ventricular resynchronization. , 2000, Italian heart journal : official journal of the Italian Federation of Cardiology.

[9]  C. Ibukiyama,et al.  Experimental study of the effects of multi-site sequential ventricular pacing on the prophylaxis of ventricular fibrillation. , 2000, Japanese heart journal.

[10]  Kevin Vernooy,et al.  Intra-ventricular resynchronization for optimal left ventricular function during pacing in experimental left bundle branch block. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  D. Mark,et al.  Prognostic importance of defibrillator shocks in patients with heart failure. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  F. Prinzen,et al.  Baseline left ventricular dP/dtmax rather than the acute improvement in dP/dtmax predicts clinical outcome in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy , 2011, European journal of heart failure.

[13]  A. Castellanos,et al.  Transvenous dual site left ventricular pacing plus biventricular pacing for the management of refractory ventricular tachycardia , 2007, Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology.

[14]  Theo Arts,et al.  Left bundle branch block induces ventricular remodelling and functional septal hypoperfusion. , 2005, European heart journal.

[15]  A. Michelucci,et al.  Dual-site left ventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy. , 2008, The American journal of cardiology.

[16]  Theo Arts,et al.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy cures dyssynchronopathy in canine left bundle-branch block hearts. , 2007, European heart journal.

[17]  Frits W. Prinzen,et al.  Transseptal Conduction as an Important Determinant for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, as Revealed by Extensive Electrical Mapping in the Dyssynchronous Canine Heart , 2013, Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology.

[18]  Charles Antzelevitch,et al.  Epicardial Activation of Left Ventricular Wall Prolongs QT Interval and Transmural Dispersion of Repolarization: Implications for Biventricular Pacing , 2004, Circulation.

[19]  J. Blanc,et al.  Evaluation of different ventricular pacing sites in patients with severe heart failure: results of an acute hemodynamic study. , 1997, Circulation.

[20]  Catherine Klersy,et al.  Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing Improves Resynchronization Therapy in Canine Left Bundle-Branch Hearts , 2009, Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology.

[21]  F. Prinzen,et al.  Left ventricular septal and apex pacing for optimal pump function in canine hearts. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  J. Sturdivant.  Left Ventricular Versus Simultaneous Biventricular Pacing in Patients With Heart Failure and a QRS Complex ≥120 Milliseconds , 2012 .

[23]  A. Ducharme,et al.  Left Ventricular Versus Simultaneous Biventricular Pacing in Patients With Heart Failure and a QRS Complex ≥120 Milliseconds , 2011, Circulation.