Multipoint left ventricular pacing provides additional echocardiographic benefit to responders and non-responders to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing [MultiPoint™ Pacing (MPP), St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA] improves LV function and clinical response relative to conventional CRT in patients receiving a de novo device implant. We hypothesized that patients with a previously implanted conventional CRT device would receive additional benefit by switching to MPP. Patients receiving a CRT implant (Unify Quadra MP™ or Quadra Assura MP™ CRT-D and Quartet™ LV lead, St. Jude Medical) were programmed to conventional CRT (i.e. biventricular pacing with right ventricular and single LV sites) optimized by intraoperative haemodynamic measurements. After 12 months of conventional therapy, patients were reprogrammed to MPP and re-evaluated at 16 months post-implant. Response to CRT was prospectively defined as reduction in end-systolic volume (ESV) of ≥15% relative to baseline as determined by a blinded observer. Eight patients with an implanted CRT device [New York Heart Association III, ejection fraction (EF) 30 ± 5%, QRS 149 ± 18 ms] received 12 months of conventional CRT and were switched to MPP. After 12 months of conventional CRT, ESV reduction and EF increase relative to baseline were −18 ± 12 and +5 ± 4%, respectively, and six of eight (75%) patients were considered CRT responders. After 4 months of MPP, two of two (100%) patients classified as non-responders to conventional CRT became responders with additional reduction in ESV of −33 and −20% and improvement in EF of +15 and +4%. The remaining six patients classified as responders experienced additional reduction in ESV of −13 ± 21% and improvement in EF of +7 ± 7% after switching to MPP. Multipoint LV pacing may provide additional improvement to LV function in patients receiving conventional CRT.

[1]  L. Tavazzi,et al.  Multipoint Left Ventricular Pacing in a Single Coronary Sinus Branch Improves Mid‐Term Echocardiographic and Clinical Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy , 2015, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[2]  Christophe Leclercq,et al.  A review of multisite pacing to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy. , 2015, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[3]  Stuart P. Rosenberg,et al.  A comparison of left ventricular endocardial, multisite, and multipolar epicardial cardiac resynchronization: an acute haemodynamic and electroanatomical study. , 2014, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[4]  C. Leclercq,et al.  Improvement in acute contractility and hemodynamics with multipoint pacing via a left ventricular quadripolar pacing lead , 2014, Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology.

[5]  L. Tavazzi,et al.  Multipoint left ventricular pacing improves acute hemodynamic response assessed with pressure-volume loops in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. , 2014, Heart rhythm.

[6]  Christophe Leclercq,et al.  Acute effects of multisite left ventricular pacing on mechanical dyssynchrony in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. , 2013, Journal of cardiac failure.

[7]  P. Khairy,et al.  Acute haemodynamic comparison of multisite and biventricular pacing with a quadripolar left ventricular lead. , 2013, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[8]  Finn Gustafsson,et al.  2010 Focused Update of ESC Guidelines on Device Therapy in Heart Failure , 2011 .

[9]  John L Sapp,et al.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  J Taylor,et al.  Focused update of the ESC Guidelines on device therapy in heart failure. , 2010, European heart journal.

[11]  Brandon K. Fornwalt,et al.  Agreement Is Poor Among Current Criteria Used to Define Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy , 2010, Circulation.

[12]  Wojciech Zareba,et al.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Long-term prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy is related to the extent of left ventricular reverse remodeling at midterm follow-up. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Results of the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) Trial , 2008, Circulation.

[15]  Alex Pui-Wai Lee,et al.  Benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure patients with narrow QRS complexes and coexisting systolic asynchrony by echocardiography. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Clinical versus echocardiographic parameters to assess response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. , 2006, The American journal of cardiology.

[17]  D. Birnie,et al.  The problem of non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy , 2006, Current opinion in cardiology.

[18]  J. Daubert,et al.  The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  D. DeMets,et al.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  Thomas Lavergne,et al.  Effects of multisite biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay , 2001 .