Early pacing-induced systolic dyssynchrony is a strong predictor of left ventricular adverse remodeling: Analysis from the Pacing to Avoid Cardiac Enlargement (PACE) trial

Background

Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing is associated with adverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling and biventricular (BiV) pacing may prevent it although the mechanisms remain unclear. The current study aimed to assess the role of early pacing-induced systolic dyssynchrony (DYS) to predict adverse LV remodeling.

Methods

Patients with standard pacing indications and normal LV ejection fraction were randomized either to BiV (n = 89) or RVA pacing (n = 88). Pacing-induced DYS, defined as the standard deviation of the time to peak systolic velocity (Dyssynchrony Index) > 33 ms in a 12-segmental model of LV, was measured by tissue Doppler echocardiography at 1 month.

Results

At 1 month, 59 patients (33%) had DYS which was more prevalent in RVA than BiV pacing group (52% vs. 15%, χ² = 28.3, p < 0.001), though Dyssynchrony Index was similar at baseline (30 ± 14 vs. 26 ± 11 ms, p = 0.06). At 12 months, those developing DYS had significantly lower LV ejection fraction (55.1 ± 9.7 vs. 62.2 ± 7.9%, p < 0.001) and larger LV end-systolic volume (35.3 ± 14.3 vs. 27.0 ± 10.4 ml, p < 0.001) when compared to those without DYS. Reduction of ejection fraction ≥ 5% occurred in 67% (39 out of 58) of patients with DYS, but only in 18% (21 out of 115) in those without DYS (χ² = 40.8, p < 0.001). Both DYS at 1 month (odds ratio [OR]: 4.725, p = 0.001) and RVA pacing (OR: 3.427, p = 0.009) were independent predictors for reduction of ejection fraction at 12 months.

Conclusion

Early pacing-induced DYS is a significant predictor of LV adverse remodeling and the observed benefit of BiV pacing may be related to the prevention of DYS.

Clinical trial registration

Centre for Clinical Trials number, CUHK_CCT00037 (URL: http://www.cct.cuhk.edu.hk/Registry/publictrialrecord.aspx?trialid=CUHK_CCT00037).     

Diminished left ventricular dyssynchrony and impact of resynchronization in failing hearts with right versus left bundle branch block.

OBJECTIVES: We compared mechanical dyssynchrony and the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in failing hearts with a pure right (RBBB) versus left bundle branch block (LBBB). BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy is effective for treating failing hearts with conduction delay and discoordinate contraction. Most data pertain to LBBB delays. With RBBB, the lateral wall contracts early so that biventricular (BiV) pre-excitation may not be needed. Furthermore, the magnitude of dyssynchrony and impact of CRT in pure RBBB versus LBBB remains largely unknown. METHODS: Dogs with tachypacing-induced heart failure combined with right or left bundle branch radiofrequency ablation were studied. Basal dyssynchrony and effects of single and BiV CRT on left ventricular (LV) function were assessed by pressure-volume catheter and tagged magnetic resonance imaging, respectively. RESULTS: Left bundle branch block and RBBB induced similar QRS widening, and LV function (ejection fraction, maximum time derivative of LV pressure [dP/dt(max)]) was similarly depressed in failing hearts with both conduction delays. Despite this, mechanical dyssynchrony was less in RBBB (circumferential uniformity ratio estimate [CURE] index: 0.80 +/- 0.03 vs. 0.58 +/- 0.09 for LBBB, p < 0.04; CURE 0-->1 is dyssynchronous-->synchronous). Cardiac resynchronization therapy had correspondingly less effect on hearts with RBBB than those with LBBB (i.e., 5.5 +/- 1.1% vs. 29.5 +/- 5.0% increase in dP/dt(max), p < 0.005), despite similar baselines. Furthermore, right ventricular-only pacing enhanced function and synchrony in RBBB as well or better than did BiV, whereas LV-only pacing worsened function. CONCLUSIONS: Less mechanical dyssynchrony is induced by RBBB than LBBB in failing hearts, and the corresponding impact of CRT on the former is reduced. Right ventricular-only pacing may be equally efficacious as BiV CRT in hearts with pure right bundle branch conduction delay.     

Remarkable response to cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing in patients with true left bundle branch block

BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative means to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).HypothesisLBBP may deliver resynchronization therapy along with an advantage over traditional biventricular (BiV) pacing in clinical outcomes.MethodsHeart failure patients who presented LBBB morphology according to Strauss''s criteria and received successful CRT procedure were enrolled in the present study. Propensity score matching was applied to match patients into LBBP‐CRT group and BiV‐CRT group. Then, the electrographic data, the echocardiographic data and New York heart association (NYHA) class were compared between the groups.ResultsTwenty‐one patients with successful LBBP procedure and another 21 matched patients with successful BiV‐CRT procedure were finally enrolled in the study. The QRS duration (QRSd) was narrowed from 167.7 ± 14.9 ms to 111.7 ± 12.3 ms (P < .0001) in the LBBP‐CRT group and from 163.6 ± 13.8 ms to 130.1 ± 14.0 ms (P < .0001) in the BiV‐CRT group. A trend toward better left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was recorded in the LBBP‐CRT group (50.9 ± 10.7% vs 44.4 ± 13.3%, P = .12) compared to that in the BiV‐CRT group at the 6‐month follow‐up. A trend toward better echocardiographic response was documented in patients receiving LBBP‐CRT procedure (90.5% vs 80.9%, P = .43) and more super CRT response was documented in the LBBP‐CRT group (80.9% vs 57.1%, P = .09) compared to that in the BiV‐CRT group.ConclusionsLBBP‐CRT can dramatically improve the electrical synchrony in heart failure patients with LBBB. Meanwhile, compared with the traditional BiV‐CRT, it has a tendency to significantly improve LVEF and enhance the NYHA cardiac function scores.     

Left ventricular conduction delays induced by right ventricular apical pacing: effect of left ventricular dysfunction and bundle branch block

Background: RV apical pacing (RVP) may be deleterious, possibly by simulating LBBB, i.e., prolonging QRS duration (QRSd) and LV activation (LVAT). However, determinants of electrical delays are unknown.
Hypothesis: LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 40%, HF) and pre-existing conduction system abnormalities may modulate RVP's effects, compared to LBBB.
Methods: RVP-induced QRSd and LVAT were compared in normal LV to HF, with normal QRS (<120 ms), RBBB, or LBBB. LVAT was estimated by interval from QRS onset to basal inferolateral LV depolarization.
Results: During LBBB and RVP, LVAT/QRSd was ≥85%, i.e., LVAT indicated terminal LV depolarization. In normal LV, LVAT during intrinsic conduction (55 ± 18 ms) was delayed by RVP (129 ± 20 ms, n = 58, P < 0.001). RVP's effects were similar to LBBB (P = NS) and unaffected by baseline conduction disease. In HF overall, RVP-induced delays (QRSd 209 ± 27, LVAT 186 ± 26 ms, n = 102) were greater than RVP in normal LV (P < 0.001). When baseline conduction system disease was present, RVP's effects were exaggerated (RVP wide QRS [>120 ms]: QRSd 216 ± 27, LVAT 191 ± 20 ms, [n = 72] vs RVP normal QRS: QRSd 193 ± 24, LVAT 169 ± 24 ms, n = 31, P < 0.001). In patients with LBBB (n = 41), delays during intrinsic conduction (QRSd 163 ± 29, LVAT 137 ± 33 ms, n = 41) were enhanced by RVP (QRSd 218 ± 28, LVAT 191 ± 22 ms, P < 0.001). RVP's effects were similar in patients with LBBB and RBBB (P = NS).
Conclusion: RVP simulated LBBB in normal LV. In HF, RVP induced greater conduction delays than LBBB, enhanced by accompanying conduction disease. These variations may contribute to RVP's mixed clinical effects.     

完全性左束支阻滞和右束支阻滞心电图结果分析

目的 了解完全性左束支阻滞和右束支阻滞不同性别、不同年龄的发生率情况.方法 分析108 610例常规心电图检测结果,分别统计完全性左束支阻滞和右束支阻滞不同性别、不同年龄的发生率情况.结果 108 610例门诊及住院患者资料,完全性左束支阻滞19例,占0.18％;右束支阻滞3 794例,占3.49％;完全性左束支阻滞发生率在不同性别之间差异无统计学意义（Х^2=1.707,P=0.191）,不同年龄之间比较差异有统计学意义（Х^2=209.874,P＜0.05）;右束支阻滞发生率在不同性别之间、不同年龄之间比较,差异均有统计学意义（Х^2=986.046,P＜0.05;Х^2=1 483.286,P＜0.05）.结论 60岁以上老年人的完全性左束支阻滞和右束支阻滞发生率较高,应定期进行常规心电图检查,及时发现异常情况并进行相应的处理.     

Cardiac resynchronization performed by LBBaP-CRT in patients with cardiac insufficiency and left bundle branch block

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB), and to compare the clinical effects with traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Methods

Thirty-two patients with dilated cardiomyopathy complicated by cardiac insufficiency and left bundle branch block were divided into CRT group and LBBaP group. Parameters including pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, pacing impedance and operation time, and X-ray exposure time were recorded. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) were examined by echocardiography. The changes of QRS complex before and after operation were compared.

Results

Compared with CRT group, the LBBaP group spent less time on total operation time and X-ray exposure time and had stable electrode parameters including pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, and lead impedance after 12-month follow-up. In addition, LBBaP can achieve narrow QRS complex (117.15 ± 9.91) ms immediately than that in CRT group (130.32 ± 12.41) ms. The change of QRS between LBBaP is (50.30 ± 23.79) ms and CRT group is (33.15 ± 20.22) ms. After 6 months' follow-up in LBBaP group, EF was higher than that before operation. Followed up for 12 months after operation, EF and LVEDD in LBBaP group were significantly improved compared with those before operation.

Conclusion

Left bundle branch area pacing is a safe and effective resynchronization method for patients with cardiac insufficiency and asynchronization, which can achieve same clinical effects to CRT.

     

Recurrent extensive anterior myocardial infarction with left and right bundle branch block

The diagnosis of myocardial infarction with left bundle branch block is difficult. We report a case of 56‐year‐old man with old extensive anterior myocardial infarction and left bundle branch block (masked each other). The recurrent myocardial infarction indicated right bundle branch block and first‐degree atrioventricular block, making a clear diagnosis of complicated and interesting ECG.     

Differentiation between left bundle branch block and left ventricular hypertrophy: Implications for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure hospitalizations and mortality in patients with complete left bundle branch block (LBBB), but potentially not those with right bundle branch block or nonspecific LV conduction delay, such as that due to LV hypertrophy (LVH). Furthermore, endocardial mapping and simulation studies have suggested that one-third of patients diagnosed with LBBB by conventional electrocardiographic criteria are misdiagnosed, and these patients likely have a combination of LVH, LV chamber dilatation and delayed initiation of LV activation (incomplete LBBB). Increase in LV size due to hypertrophy/dilatation and slowed intramyocardial conduction velocity prolong QRS duration in patients with LVH, which can frequently go above the QRS duration threshold of 120 ms conventionally used to diagnose LBBB. New strict criteria for diagnosing complete LBBB have been proposed that utilize longer QRS duration thresholds (130 ms in women and 140 ms in men) and require the presence of mid-QRS notching/slurring in at least 2 of the leads I, aVL, V1, V2, V5 or V6. The emergence of CRT has led to an increased need to differentiate complete LBBB from LVH and other types of intraventricular conduction delay, which should be further studied.     

Body surface mapping criteria for diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy associated with complete right bundle branch block

The standard electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy are unreliable in patients with complete right bundle branch block. This study was undertaken to formulate criteria for diagnosing these patients by using body surface mapping. The echocardiographic left ventricular mass was calculated by the Penn method from M-mode measurements. Of 56 patients, 27 were defined as having left ventricular hypertrophy with a left ventricular mass of 215 g or more. Isopotential and isointegral maps of the QRS complex were observed. The QRS isointegral maps were separated into two parts at the end of the downstroke of the initial R wave of vector spatial magnitude. The body surface mapping criteria with the highest sensitivity were EPmax (maximum of early part of the QRS) 45 μV·s or greater (sensitivity 93%, specificity 90%), EPmax/d (EPmax averaged by EP duration) 0.8 mV or greater (sensitivity 93%, specificity 97%), and Max (initial maximum) 2.2 mV or greater (sensitivity 89%, specificity 90%). These results suggest that body surface mapping is a useful technique in diagnosing patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and right bundle branch block.     

Cardiac resynchronization performed by LBBaP‐CRT in patients with cardiac insufficiency and left bundle branch block

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB), and to compare the clinical effects with traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).MethodsThirty‐two patients with dilated cardiomyopathy complicated by cardiac insufficiency and left bundle branch block were divided into CRT group and LBBaP group. Parameters including pacing threshold, R‐wave amplitude, pacing impedance and operation time, and X‐ray exposure time were recorded. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end‐systolic diameter (LVESD) were examined by echocardiography. The changes of QRS complex before and after operation were compared.ResultsCompared with CRT group, the LBBaP group spent less time on total operation time and X‐ray exposure time and had stable electrode parameters including pacing threshold, R‐wave amplitude, and lead impedance after 12‐month follow‐up. In addition, LBBaP can achieve narrow QRS complex (117.15 ± 9.91) ms immediately than that in CRT group (130.32 ± 12.41) ms. The change of QRS between LBBaP is (50.30 ± 23.79) ms and CRT group is (33.15 ± 20.22) ms. After 6 months'' follow‐up in LBBaP group, EF was higher than that before operation. Followed up for 12 months after operation, EF and LVEDD in LBBaP group were significantly improved compared with those before operation.ConclusionLeft bundle branch area pacing is a safe and effective resynchronization method for patients with cardiac insufficiency and asynchronization, which can achieve same clinical effects to CRT.     

Risk and predictors of dyssynchrony cardiomyopathy in left bundle branch block with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

BackgroundLeft bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony likely contribute to progressive systolic dysfunction. The evaluation of newly recognized LBBB includes screening for structural heart abnormalities and coronary artery disease (CAD). In patients whose LV ejection fraction (EF) is preserved during initial testing, the incidence of subsequent cardiomyopathy is not firmly established.HypothesisThe risk of developing LV systolic dysfunction among LBBB patients with preserved LVEF is high enough to warrant serial imaging.MethodsWe screened records of 1000 consecutive patients with LBBB from our ECG database and identified subjects with an initially preserved LVEF (≥45%) without clinically relevant CAD or other cause for cardiomyopathy. Baseline imaging, clinical data, and follow‐up imaging were recorded to determine the risk of subsequent LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%).Results(Data are mean + SD) 784 subjects were excluded, the majority for CAD or depressed LVEF upon initial imaging. Of the remaining 216, 37 (17%) developed a decline in LVEF(≤40%) over a mean follow‐up of 55 ± 31 months; 94% of these patients had a baseline LVEF≤60% and LV end systolic diameter (ESD) ≥ 2.9 cm indicating that these measures may be useful to define which patients warrant longitudinal follow‐up. The negative predictive value of a LVEF>60% and LVESD <2.9 cm was 98%.ConclusionsSeventeen percent of patients with LBBB and initial preserved LVEF develop dyssynchrony cardiomyopathy. We believe the risk of developing dyssynchrony cardiomyopathy is high enough to warrant serial assessment of LV systolic function in this high‐risk population.     

Mechanical dyssynchrony in congestive heart failure: diagnostic and therapeutic implications

Myocardial imaging has been successfully applied to the evaluation of patients with heart failure, particularly identifying candidates who are likely to respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Recent studies have shown the benefits of CRT in heart failure patients with depressed ejection fraction (EF) and a narrow QRS complex, albeit in a small number of patients, and without a placebo arm. In addition, few reports have noted the presence of pathophysiologically relevant mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure and normal EF. Collectively, these data support the need for a better understanding of cardiac function/dysfunction and its treatment in these patient groups.     

Recovery of complete left bundle branch block following heart failure improvement by left bundle branch pacing in a patient

A 57‐year‐old male presented with symptomatic systolic heart failure and complete left bundle branch block (LBBB). Left bundle branch pacing corrected LBBB at a low capture threshold (0.5V @0.4ms) with right bundle branch conduction delay and paced QRS morphology changed to near‐normal by adjusting AV delay with diminished RBBD. At 1‐year follow‐up, the patient had a significant improvement in heart failure and LBBB automatically resolved with a rate‐dependent pattern. LBBP may be an alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy with the likelihood of recovery of LBBB. More research is needed to evaluate the potential use of this pacing strategy in patients with LBBB and heart failure.     

右束支阻滞患者心脏再同步治疗疗效分析

目的 回顾分析阜外心血管病医院心律失常中心合并右束支阻滞(RBBB)的心力衰竭患者心脏再同步治疗(CRT)疗效.方法 本中心自2008年1月至2010年12月植入CRT-P/D的合并RBBB的心力衰竭患者,接受常规每3～6个月门诊随访,随访内容包括心功能(NYHA分级)、6 min步行距离、Minnesota生活质量评分、超声心动图及程控等指标.结果 共7例合并RBBB心力衰竭患者植入CRT-P/D,其中男6例,女1例,年龄19 ～74(57±19)岁.随访0.3～43.0(17.6±16.7)个月.随访期间发生心力衰竭住院事件7次,3例患者因心力衰竭加重死亡.6例患者为CRT无反应者,1例为CRT反应者.结论 合并RBBB的心力衰竭患者CRT无明显获益.     

Cardiac resynchronization therapy by left bundle branch area pacing in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block

1. Download : Download high-res image (302KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with atrioventricular block

BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can produce near normalization of QRS duration. This has recently emerged as alternative technique to right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing.HypothesisThe purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of LBBP compared to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP).MethodsA total of 70 AVB patients with indications for ventricular pacing were retrospectively studied. LBBP was attempted in 33 patients, classified as LBBP group. The other patients were classified as RVAP group. Pacing parameters, electrocardiogram and echocardiogram characteristics, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and atrial fibrillation (AF) were evaluated perioperatively and at follow‐ups. Patients were followed in the device clinic for a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months at a 3–6 monthly interval.ResultsLBBP was successful in 29 of 33(87.9%) patients while all 37 of the remaining patients successfully underwent RVAP. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower in the LBBP group compare to RVAP(110.75 ± 6.77 ms vs. 154.29 ± 6.96 ms, p = .000) at implantation, and the difference persisted during follow‐ups. Pacing thresholds (at implantation: 0.68 ± 0.22 V in the LBBP group and 0.73 ± 0.23 V in the RVAP group, p = .620) remained low and stable during follow‐ups. The cardiac function in the LBBP group remained stable during follow‐ups (LVEF%:55.08 ± 4.32 pre‐operation and 54.17 ± 4.34 at the end of follow‐up, p = .609), and better than RVAP group (LVEF%: 54.17 ± 4.34 vs. 50.14 ± 2.14, p = .005). Less HFH was observed in the LBBP group (2/29,6.89%) compared to RVAP group (10/37,27.03%).ConclusionsThe present investigation demonstrates the safety and feasibility of LBBP that produces narrower paced QRS duration than RVAP. LBBP is associated with reduction in the occurrence of pacing‐induced left ventricular dysfunction and HFH compared to RVAP in patients requiring permanent pacemakers.