• This record comes from PubMed

Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing for CRT upgrades in previously failed and high-risk patients in comparison with coronary sinus CRT upgrades

. 2021 Oct 09 ; 23 (10) : 1577-1585.

Language English Country Great Britain, England Media print

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid34322707

Grant support
Wellcome Trust - United Kingdom

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrades may be less likely to improve following intervention. Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing has been used for patients with previously failed CRT or high-risk upgrades. We compared procedural and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing coronary sinus (CS) CRT upgrades with high-risk and previously failed CRT upgrades undergoing LV endocardial upgrades. METHOD AND RESULTS: Prospective consecutive CS upgrades between 2015 and 2019 were compared with those undergoing WiSE-CRT implantation. Cardiac resynchronization therapy response at 6 months was defined as improvement in clinical composite score (CCS) and a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) ≥15%. A total of 225 patients were analysed; 121 CS and 104 endocardial upgrades. Patients receiving WiSE-CRT tended to have more comorbidities and were more likely to have previous cardiac surgery (30.9% vs. 16.5%; P = 0.012), hypertension (59.2% vs. 34.7%; P < 0.001), chronic obstructive airways disease (19.4% vs. 9.9%; P = 0.046), and chronic kidney disease (46.4% vs. 21.5%; P < 0.01) but similar LV ejection fraction (30.0 ± 8.3% vs. 29.5 ± 8.6%; P = 0.678). WiSE-CRT upgrades were successful in 97.1% with procedure-related mortality in 1.9%. Coronary sinus upgrades were successful in 97.5% of cases with a 2.5% rate of CS dissection and 5.6% lead malfunction/displacement. At 6 months, 91 WiSE-CRT upgrades and 107 CS upgrades had similar improvements in CCS (76.3% vs. 68.5%; P = 0.210) and reduction in LVESV ≥15% (54.2% vs. 56.3%; P = 0.835). CONCLUSION: Despite prior failed upgrades and high-risk patients with more comorbidities, WiSE-CRT upgrades had high rates of procedural success and similar improvements in CCS and LV remodelling with CS upgrades.

See more in PubMed

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); European Society of Cardiology (ESC); Heart Rhythm Society; Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA); American Society of Echocardiography (ASE); American Heart Association (AHA) et al.2012 EHRA/HRS expert consensus statement on cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: implant and follow-up recommendations and management. Europace 2012;14:1236–86. PubMed

Bogale N, Witte K, Priori S, Cleland J, Auricchio A, Gadler F. et al.; on behalf of the Scientific Committee, National Coordinators and the Investigators. The European Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Survey: comparison of outcomes between de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy implantations and upgrades. Eur J Heart Fail 2011;13:974–83. PubMed

Sidhu BS, Gould J, Sieniewicz BJ, Porter B, Rinaldi CA.. Complications associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrades versus de novo implantations. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2018;16:607–15. PubMed

Zeitler EP, Friedman DJ, Daubert JP, Al-Khatib SM, Solomon SD, Biton Y. et al. Multiple comorbidities and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: MADIT-CRT long-term follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2369–79. PubMed PMC

Sidhu BS, Gould J, Sieniewicz B, Porter B, Rinaldi CA.. The role of transvenous lead extraction in the management of redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker and defibrillator leads post ELECTRa. Europace 2018;20:1733–40. PubMed

Sidhu BS, Gould J, Bunce C, Elliott M, Mehta V, Kennergren C. et al.; ELECTRa Investigators Group. The effect of centre volume and procedure location on major complications and mortality from transvenous lead extraction: an ESC EHRA EORP European Lead Extraction ConTRolled ELECTRa registry subanalysis. Europace 2020;22:1718–28. PubMed

Sieniewicz BJ, Gould J, Porter B, Sidhu BS, Behar JM, Claridge S. et al. Optimal site selection and image fusion guidance technology to facilitate cardiac resynchronization therapy. Expert Rev Med Devices 2018;15:555–70. PubMed PMC

Sidhu BS, Lee AWC, Haberland U, Rajani R, Niederer S, Rinaldi CA.. Combined computed tomographic perfusion and mechanics with predicted activation pattern can successfully guide implantation of a wireless endocardial pacing system. Europace 2020;22:298. PubMed

Hyde ER, Behar JM, Crozier A, Claridge S, Jackson T, Sohal M. et al. Improvement of right ventricular hemodynamics with left ventricular endocardial pacing during cardiac resynchronization therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2016;39:531–41. PubMed PMC

Auricchio A, Delnoy PP, Butter C, Brachmann J, Van Erven L, Spitzer S. et al.; for the Collaborative Study Group. Feasibility, safety, and short-term outcome of leadless ultrasound-based endocardial left ventricular resynchronization in heart failure patients: results of the wireless stimulation endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) study. Europace 2014;16:681–8. PubMed

Reddy VY, Miller MA, Neuzil P, Sogaard P, Butter C, Seifert M. et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with wireless left ventricular endocardial pacing: the SELECT-LV study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2119–29. PubMed

Sidhu BS, Porter B, Gould J, Sieniewicz B, Elliott M, Mehta V. et al. Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing in nonresponders to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2020;43:966–73. PubMed

Sieniewicz BJ, Betts TR, James S, Turley A, Butter C, Seifert M. et al. Real-world experience of leadless left ventricular endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy: a multicenter international registry of the WiSE-CRT pacing system. Heart Rhythm 2020;17:1291–7. PubMed PMC

Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, Bordachar P, Boriani G, Breithardt OA, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace 2013;15:1070–118. PubMed

Packer M. Proposal for a new clinical end point to evaluate the efficacy of drugs and devices in the treatment of chronic heart failure. J Card Fail 2001;7:176–82. PubMed

Varma N, Boehmer J, Bhargava K, Yoo D, Leonelli F, Costanzo M. et al. Evaluation, management, and outcomes of patients poorly responsive to cardiac resynchronization device therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;74:2588–603. PubMed

Cheung JW, Ip JE, Markowitz SM, Liu CF, Thomas G, Feldman DN. et al. Trends and outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade procedures: a comparative analysis using a United States National Database 2003-2013. Heart Rhythm 2017;14:1043–50. PubMed

Vamos M, Erath JW, Bari Z, Vagany D, Linzbach SP, Burmistrava T. et al. Effects of upgrade versus de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy on clinical response and long-term survival: results from a multicenter study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2017;10:e004471. PubMed

Morgan JM, Biffi M, Geller L, Leclercq C, Ruffa F, Tung S. et al. ALternate Site Cardiac ResYNChronization (ALSYNC): a prospective and multicentre study of left ventricular endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2118–27. PubMed

Gold MR, Rickard J, Daubert JC, Zimmerman P, Linde C.. Redefining the classifications of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the REVERSE study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.11.010. PubMed

Back

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options