Search Results (3)

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a cornerstone in the treatment of dyssynchronous heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, the phenomenon of non-response has plagued CRT since its initial application. Notwithstanding issues such as failure to capture the left ventricle, lower-than-required pacing delivery percent, and failure to optimize atrioventricular and interventricular delays, there are patients who fail to exhibit an adequate response to CRT in its classical biventricular pacing (BiVP) form. Several modalities have been proposed as a means to remedy this issue, including pacing the conduction system itself—His or left bundle branch pacing, allowing for intrinsic conduction in some myocardial segments, pacing the left ventricle from multiple points in the coronary sinus (multipoint pacing), or even combining the above (e.g., His/left bundle pacing and BiVP leading to His/left bundle-optimized CRT). In the present review, we present recent evidence for the advantages and disadvantages of each modality and attempt to formulate a pathophysiology and simulation-based strategy to determine the best way forward for delivering CRT in non-responders to BiVP. Full article

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality and reverses left ventricular (LV) remodeling in heart failure patients with LV electrical dyssynchrony, induced proarrhythmia has been reported. The mechanism of CRT-induced proarrhythmia remains under debate. In this case report, a description of how LV pacing induced polymorphic ventricular tachycardia immediately after the initiation of CRT has been reported. By changing the pacing configuration using a multipoint pacing stimulation, we can assume that induced ventricular tachycardia is related to the reentry mechanism facilitated by the unidirectional block. As a result, a multipoint pacing (MPP) configuration near the scar area can avoid the onset of a unidirectional block with the establishment of the reentry phenomenon, thus avoiding induced VTs. Full article

Background: Up to 40% of patients are CRT non-responders. Multisite pacing, using a unique quadripolar lead, also called multipoint/multipole pacing (MPP), is a potential alternative. We sought to determine the feasibility of intentional anodal capture using a single LV quadripolar lead, to reproduce MPP without the need of a specific algorithm (so-called “pseudo MPP”). Methods: Consecutive patients implanted with a commercially available CRT device and a quadripolar LV lead in our department were prospectively included. The electric charge (Q, in Coulomb) of RV and LV pacing spikes were calculated for all available LV pacing configurations at the threshold. The best MPP was defined as the configuration with the lowest consumption (Q_RV + Q_{best LV1} + Q_{best LV2}). The best “pseudo MPP” (Q_RV + Q_{LV1–LV2 with anodal capture}) and best BVp (Q_RV + Q_{best LV}) were also calculated. A theoretical longevity was estimated for each configuration at the threshold without a safety margin. Results: A total of 235 configurations were tested in 15 consecutive patients. “Pseudo-MPP” was feasible in 80% of patients with 3.1 ± 2.6 vectors available per-patient and LV_proximal-LV_distal (most distant electrodes) vectors were available in 47% of patients. Each MPP pacing spike electrical charge was comparable to “pseudo-MPP” (18,428 ± 6863 µC and 20,528 ± 5509 µC, respectively, p = 0.15). Theoretical longevity was 6.2 years for MPP, 5.6 years for “pseudo-MPP” and 13.7 years for BVp. Conclusions: “Pseudo MPP” using intentional anodal capture with a quadripolar left ventricular lead, mimicking conventional multisite pacing, is feasible in most of CRT patients, with comparable energy consumption. Further studies on their potential clinical impact are needed. Full article