P3808iBox-CRT: Better response, less complicated, equally fast

Introduction The optimization of the left ventricle (LV) pacing site guided by the electrical delay increases CRT response rate (RR), however it's necessary to develop technology that allows its universal use. Purpose The aim is automatically, and operator-independent, access the conduction delay between the right ventricular (RV) stimulus and the LV available veins in order to select the LV pacing site. It is further intended to compare the total procedure and radiation times in relation to an historical control group. Methods Prospective, single-center study that included patients undergoing CRT implant according to the current ESC Guidelines. All patients were submitted to a clinical, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic basal evaluation prior to CRT implantation and at 6 months of follow-up. To evaluate conduction delays between the RV lead and the LV available veins (RV-LV delay), an external interface - intelligent Box for CRT (iBox-CRT) was used. Four measurements in at least two different tributary veins were made. The implant of all the LV leads was guided by the longest measured delay. A positive response to CRT was defined as an improvement of >10% in left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) or a reduction of end-systolic volume (ESV)>15%. The results were compared to a control group (CG) of pts submitted to CRT implantation in the conventional way. Results 60 patients were included (68.3% males, 38% ischemic, mean age 67.4±10.2 years) and submitted to CRT implant (37 CRT-P; 23 CRT-D). At basal evaluation, LVEF was 28±7%, end-diastolic volume (EDV) was 200±73ml and ESV 145±64ml. CG (n=51) had similar characteristics. The RR was 85.7%, significantly higher compared to the CG (55.9%, p=0.003). The ESV reduced 38.2±3% in responders vs 5.7±2% in non-responders (NR) (p=0,005), EDV reduced 33.3±16% in responders vs 13.6±10% in NR (p=0.002), the mean LVEF improved 11% in responders vs −1% in NR (p=0.02). At follow-up, the mean ESV in the study group (SG) was 89±44 ml vs 132±75ml in the CG (p=0.002) and the EDV 136±51 vs 190±78 (p=0.007). In addition to a much better response rate, the responders in the study group had significantly higher mean LVEF at follow-up (39±11% vs 37±7%, p=0.032). The mean intra-procedure RV-LV delay was 187±34mseg. In the responder group the baseline delay was usually higher (190±35 msec) vs NR group RV-LV delay (165±23 msec; p=NS). Compared with CG, the automatic assessment of RV-LV delay with iBox-CRT did not increase fluoroscopy time (15±16min vs 18±16; p=NS) and shortened procedure time (65±34 vs 108±83min, p Conclusions The iBox-CRT use enabled an automatic and operator independent RV-LV delays measurement, in order to implant the LV lead at the most delayed site. This technique translated into a major increase in CTR response rate, not compromising the procedure duration nor increasing the radiation exposure.