Search

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) were largely excluded from the major clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), despite the presence of AF in up to 40% of patients receiving CRT in clinical practice. AF appears to attenuate the response to CRT, by the combination of a reduction in biventricular pacing and the loss of atrioventricular synchrony. In addition, remodeling secondary to CRT may influence the progression of AF. Management options for patients with AF and CRT include rate control, with drugs or atrioventricular node ablation, or rhythm control, with electrical cardioversion and antiarrhythmic therapy, or AF catheter ablation. The evidence for these therapies in patients with CRT is largely limited to observational studies or inferred from randomized studies in the general heart failure population. In this review, we explore the complex interaction between AF, heart failure, and CRT and discuss the evidence for the treatment options in this difficult patient cohort.

Background: No periprocedural metric has demonstrated improved cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes in a multicenter setting. Objective: We sought to determine if left ventricular (LV) lead placement targeted to the coronary sinus (CS) branch generating the best acute hemodynamic response (AHR) results in improved outcomes at 6 months. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients were randomized to guided CRT or conventional CRT. Patients in the guided arm had LV dP/dtmax measured during biventricular (BIV) pacing. Target CS branches were identified and the final LV lead position was the branch with the best AHR and acceptable threshold values. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) of ≥15% at 6 months. Results: A total of 281 patients were recruited across 12 centers. Mean age was 70.8 ± 10.9 years and 54% had ischemic etiology. Seventy-three percent of patients in the guided arm demonstrated a reduction in LVESV of ≥15% at 6 months vs 60% in the conventional arm (P = .02). Patients with AHR ≥ 10% were more likely to demonstrate a reduction of ESV ≥ 15% (84% of patients with an AHR ≥10% vs 28% with an AHR

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) produces acute changes in electric resynchronization that can be measured noninvasively with electrocardiographic body surface mapping (ECGi). The relation between baseline acute electrophysiology metrics and their manipulation with CRT and reverse remodeling is unclear. Objective: To test (ECGi) derived parameters of electrical activation as predictors of volumetric response to CRT. Methods: ECGi was performed in 21 patients directly following CRT implant. Activation parameters (left ventricular total activation time [LVtat], global biventricular total activation time [VVtat], global left/right ventricular electrical synchrony [VVsync], and global left ventricular dispersion of activation times [LVdisp]) were measured at baseline and following echocardiographically optimized CRT. Remodeling response (>15% reduction left ventricular end-systolic volume) was assessed 6 months post CRT. Results: Patients were aged 68.9 ± 12.1 years, 81% were male, and 57% were ischemic. Baseline measures of dyssynchrony were more pronounced in left bundle branch block (LBBB) vs non-LBBB. ECGi demonstrated a trend of greater interventricular dyssynchrony between responders and nonresponders that did not reach statistical significance (VVsync: -45.7 ± 22.4 ms vs -25.1 ± 29.3 ms, P = .227). Remaining activation parameters were similar between responders and nonresponders (VVtat 101 ± 22.0 ms vs 98.9 ± 23.4 ms, P = .838; LVtat 86.4 ± 17.1 ms vs 85.1 ± 27.7 ms, P = .904; LVdisp 28.2 ± 6.3 ms vs 27.0 ± 8.7 ms, P = .726). In volumetric responders activation parameters were significantly improved with CRT compared to nonresponders: VV sync (-45.67 ± 22.41 ms vs 2.33±18.87 ms, P = .001), VVtat (101 ± 22.04 ms vs 71 ± 14.01 ms, P = .002), LVtat (86.44 ± 17.15 ms vs 67.67 ± 11.31 ms, P = .006), and LVdisp (28.22 ± 6.3 ms vs 21.56 ± 4.45 ms, P = .008). Conclusion: Baseline ECGi activation times did not predict CRT volumetric response. Volumetric responders exhibited significant improvements in ECGi-derived metrics with CRT. ECGi does not select CRT candidates but may be a useful adjunct to guide left ventricle lead implants and to perform postimplant CRT optimization.