Search

Purpose Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing (MultiPoint™ Pacing, MPP) has been shown to improve CRT response, although MPP response using automated pacing vector programming has not been demonstrated in the Middle East. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of MPP to conventional biventricular pacing (BiV) using echocardiographic and clinical changes at 6-month post-implant. Methods This prospective, randomized study was conducted at 13 Middle Eastern centers. After de novo CRT-D implant (Abbott Unify Quadra MP™ or Quadra Assura MP™) with quadripolar LV lead (Abbott Quartet™), patients were randomized to either BiV or MPP therapy. In BiV patients, the LV pacing vector was selected per standard practice; in MPP patients, the two LV pacing vectors were selected automatically using VectSelect. CRT response was defined at 6-month post-implant by a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (ESV) ≥ 15%. Results One hundred and forty-two patients (61 years old, 68% male, NYHA class II/III/IV 19%/75%/6%, 33% ischemic, 57% hypertension, 52% diabetes, 158 ms QRS, 25.8% ejection fraction [EF]) were randomized to either BiV (N = 69) or MPP (N = 73). After 6 months, MPP vs. BiV patients experienced greater ESV reduction (25.0% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.08), greater EF improvement (11.9% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.36), significantly greater ESV response rate (68.5% vs. 50.7%, P = 0.04), and significantly greater NYHA class improvement rate (80.8% vs. 60.3%, P = 0.01). Conclusions With MPP and automatic LV vector selection, more CRT patients in the Middle East experienced reverse remodeling and clinical improvement relative to conventional BiV pacing.

Objectives This multicenter registry aimed to assess the reproducibility and safety of intentional coronary vein exit and carbon dioxide insufflation to facilitate subxiphoid epicardial ac...

Background— The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is superior to amiodarone for secondary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death. However, the magnitude of this benefit over long-term follow-up is not known. Thus, our objective was to evaluate the long-term consequences of using amiodarone versus an ICD as first-line monotherapy in patients with a prior history of sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest. Methods and Results— A total of 120 patients were enrolled at St Michael’s Hospital in the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) and were randomly assigned to receive either amiodarone (n=60) or an ICD (n=60). The treatment strategy was not altered after the end of CIDS unless the initial assigned therapy was not effective or was associated with serious side effects. After a mean follow-up of 5.6±2.6 years, there were 28 deaths (47%) in the amiodarone group, compared with 16 deaths (27%) in the ICD group ( P =0.0213). Total mortality was 5.5% per year in the amiodarone group versus 2.8% per year in the ICD group (hazard ratio of amiodarone: ICD, 2.011; 95% confidence interval, 1.087 to 3.721; P =0.0261). In the amiodarone group, 49 patients (82% of all patients) had side effects related to amiodarone, of which 30 patients (50% of all patients) required discontinuation or dose reduction; 19 patients crossed over to ICD because of amiodarone failure (n=7) or side effects (n=12). Conclusions— In a subset of CIDS, the benefit of the ICD over amiodarone increases with time; most amiodarone-treated patients eventually develop side effects, have arrhythmia recurrences, or die.

We report the case of a 40-year-old patient with incessant supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). As this SVT was resistant to medical therapy and was complicated by severe LV dysfunction and cardiogenic shock, the patient was referred for EPS (electrophysiologic study) and ablation. EPS and successful ablation of the right atrial appendage (RAA) tachycardia were performed by means of a 3D mapping system NavX (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) with complete resolution of symptoms and normalization of LV function, as evaluated at three-month follow-up examination.