Major clinical trials.
Abstract
Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a serious health problem affecting all nations of world. Its impact is increasing with increasing individual age. Ventricular dyssynchrony is well known to contribute to pathophysiological deterioration in more than one-third of CHF subjects. The therapeutic choices of CHF witnessed long decades of stagnant periods and a relative paucity of effective treatment. The discovery of the electrical therapy that is capable of reversing ventricular dyssynchrony, in the form of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), is a true revolution in the timeline of CHF management. Despite the early enthusiasm associated with CRT implantations started in 2001, we know from the last two decades’ experience that non-responders constitute to nearly 40% of all CRT patients. This chapter is devoted to reviewing the past, present and future of CRT with special attention on better intelligent detection of the electrical substrate responsive to CRT as well as optimizing the choice of CRT subjects using the latest knowledge in electrocardiographic and state-of-art imagining technologies. Novel future directions are discussed with new scientific philosophies capable of optimizing CRT. Promising new implants techniques such as endocardial pacing of the left ventricle, His bundle pacing as well as His-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy are discussed.
Keywords
- cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)
- congestive heart failure (CHF)
- electrical cardiac devices
- left bundle branch block (LBBB)
- right bundle branch block (RBBB)
- future directions
1. Introduction
Congestive heart failure (CHF) is one of the most important epidemics in the current human species era affecting 1–2% of adults and around 10% of >70 years old in developed countries. The lifetime risk of developing heart failure is one in five after 40 years of age. In the United States, it costs around $39.2 billion in 2010. Sub group of CHF subjects with reduced ejection fraction and electrical dyssynchrony constitutes a true therapeutic challenge. Therapeutic strategies of this CHF sub group witnessed stagnant periods until electrical therapies were introduced to the world communities where cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) became available for clinical use first in 2001. Candidates for CRT are CHF subjects with reduced left ventricular systolic function, QRS duration of >120 ms with left bundle branch (LBB) morphology, and functional classification with NYHA class III–IV. Accumulative knowledge in the last two decades has shown that more than one-third of patients are not responding with lack of echocardiographic reverse remodeling or no improvement in quality of life (QOL). Intelligent CRT subjects selection with multidisciplinary expertise and improved procedural skills and strategies, as well as optimizing post-implant care are the main targets to achieve the improved outcomes for the non-responders. Nowadays, a new CRT imaging techniques and innovative pacing strategies are top priorities for us in CHF electrical therapies arena. This chapter is a journey in the CRT timeline reviewing the past, discussing the current situation, and elaborating in future directions for better psychophysiological well-being of CRT subjects.
2. Applying electrical therapy as medicine to treat human disease
Utilizing electric current to treat human disease is an idea that fascinated humans since antiquity. The electrical discharges produced by torpedo fish were utilized as an efficient natural source for electric shock generation by Hippocrates (460–370 BC), Scribonius Largus, and Galen (129–210 AC). It was prescribed for neurological diseases like headache, arthritis gout pain, and prolapsed anus. In 46 AD Scribonius Largus in his compendium of medical treatments known as
Name | Population (n) | Inclusion | Endpoint | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
MUSTIC SR | 58 | III, EF < 35%, QRS ≥ 150 | 6MWT, QoL, pVO2, hospitalization | CRT-P improved : 6MWT, QOL, pVO2; reduced hospitalization |
MIRACLE [7] | 228-CRT 25-control | III-IV, EF <35%, QRS ≥130 | NYHA class, QoL, pVO2 | CRT-P improved: NYHA, pVO2, 6MWT |
MIRACLE-ICD | 186 | II, EF < 35%, QRS ≥ 130 | 6MWT,QoL, hospitalization | CRT-D improved all from baseline (not ICD) |
COMPANION [8] | ICM NICM 1,520 | III-IV, EF < 35%, QRS > 120 | All-cause mortality or hospitalization | CRT-P/CRT-D; reduced endpoints HR 0.80 (CRT vs medical) |
CARE-HR [9] | ICM NICM 813 | III-IV, EF < 35%, QRS > 120 | All-cause mortality or hospitalization | CRT-P/CRT-D; reduced endpoints HR 0.63 |
MUSTIC AF | 59 | III, EF < 35%, QRS ≥200 (paced QRS) | 6MWT, QoL, pVO2, hospitalization | CRT-P improved : 6MWT, QOL, pVO2, hospitalization |
CONTAK-CD | All-cause death + HF hospitalization, pVO2, 6MWT, NYHA class, QoL, LVEDD, LVEF | CRT-D improved: pVO2, 6MWT; reduced LVEDD and increased LVEF | ||
RAFT [10] | 1798 | II, III, EF <30%, QRS ≥120 | Death from any cause or hospitalization for HF | The addition of CRT to an ICD reduced rates of death and hospitalization for HT |
REVERSE [11] | 610 | I-II, EF <40%, QRS ≥ 120 | (i) % worsened by clinical composite endpoint, (ii) LVESVi, (iii) HF hospitalization, (iv) all-cause death | Primary endpoint NS; CRT-P/CRT-D reduced (ii) and (iii) hospitalization but not (iv) |
MADIT-CRT [12] | ICM NICM 1820 | I-II, EF <30%, QRS ≥ 130 | (i) HF event or death, (ii) All-cause death, (iii) LVESV | CRT-D reduced (i) and (iii) but not (ii) |
MIRACLE-ICD II [13] | 186 | II, EF <35%, QRS ≥ 130 | VE/CO2, pVO2, NYHA, QOL, 6MWT, LV volumes, LVEF | CRT-D improved: NYHA, VE/CO2; volumes, LVEF |
3. The dilemma of intelligent resynchronization therapy subjects selection
The philosophy of resynchronizing the electrical stimulation of both ventricles developed into more mature practice, nowadays. The current CRT guidelines are the product of knowledge of the aforementioned clinical trials (Table 1) in addition to the accumulation of personal and institutional expert opinions. The most important organizations contributing most importantly to today’s guidelines are: American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the European Society of Cardiology. American criteria to define LBBB as defined by AHA/ACC/HRS are as follows:
QRS >_120
Notch-, slurred R in I, aVL, V5, and V6
Occasional RS pattern in V5–V6
Absent q in I, V5–V6, and aVL
R peak time >60 ms in V5 and V6
Normal R-peak time in V1–V3
No negative concordance
Usually discordant ST-T segments
The vast majority of recommendations of those organizations are concordant to each other making class I indications clear for CRT specialists to implement. Class I indications are restricted to the symptomatic patients with LVEF ≤35%, NYHA II-IV, with a QRS duration ≥130 ms despite guideline-directed medical treatment (GDMT) [15]. The most recent guidelines are account for the observations that the greatest benefits are consistently seen in those with a QRS duration >150 ms and LBBB pattern [16, 17, 18]. On the other hand, echocardiographic evaluation looking for mechanical dyssynchrony results of the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) Trial published in 2008 did not show superiority for CRT outcome for any of the predictors [19]. Accumulation of data in the last two decades demonstrated clearly that the CRT success in electrical resynchrony, mechanical remodeling, and quality of life improvement is not always directly linked to the current selection criteria. Response to CRT seems to be more complex than we thought earlier. Currently, 30–40% of our subjects are non-responders. We recommend extension criteria for CRT subjects selection considering the old criteria of QRS duration >130 ms, LV dysfunction (<35%), and NYHA class II-IV as a guideline with more extensive clinical, pathological, imaging and programming variables to be considered. Critical variables such as global scar burden, scar location, lead position, programmed AV and VV interval, mitral regurgitation, and irreversibly advanced heart failure cases are imperative considerations to improve the outcome [20] Despite the traditional dogma that normal QRS duration is a contraindication for CRT, recent challenging groups suggest that QRS complex <130 ms might benefit from CRT. This response as they describe it, is personalized but having QRS complex <130 ms should not be a reason to withhold the option of CRT in systolic heart failure if no other effective treatment is available [21]. Despite the claim that CRT is under-utilized worldwide, we suggest more wise selections with the advanced criteria for more intelligent selection. Our top priority should be the perfection of patients' choices to optimize benefits from CRT. Adjunction of defibrillator therapy with CRT as primary prevention of SCD is indicated in most CRT patients. For this reason, current guidelines advocate an implant of a CRT-D in eligible patients [9, 12]. Most of the systems we are implanting nowadays are CRT-D. This addition of defibrillator stress more for the need of more intelligent and comprehensive criteria for subjects selection. It is imperative to treat any primary disease before thinking of introducing the choice of CRT. Reversible heart diseases such as myocardial ischemia, arrhythmia (tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy), or primary valvular heart disease must be treated. When AF is a risk factor, catheter ablation of AF is superior to AV node ablation combined with biventricular pacing. This superiority is increasing with the dramatic improvement in our skills and technology, especially with pulmonary veins cryoablation technique. In the subgroup of patients who received prior pacemaker or ICD with worsening heart functions, an upgrade plan for CRT-D seems appropriate. The majority of patients we are implanting, died without experiencing an appropriate ICD shock. A selection system that is capable of predicting survival in patients who received a CRT-D as primary prevention of SCD, identify a subgroup with a significantly poor prognosis despite a CRT-D, as well as being able to discriminate between patients with a low or high risk for mortality, is highly needed. The predictive HF meta-score is constructed of independent mortality predictors identified in a meta-analysis. Three continuous variables constitute this comprehensive evaluation score. In addition to age, LVEF and eGFR, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class; 11 dichotomous variables which give the score true discriminative strength including: male gender, African-American race, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, ischemic cardiomyopathy, HF admission within 1 year before implantation, past or present atrial fibrillation, wide QRS (≥120 ms), secondary prevention indication, and history of ICD shocks (appropriate and inappropriate) [22]. The authors of this meta-analysis found the HF meta-score, a good predictor for survival and useful to detect a subgroup with a significantly poor prognosis despite a CRT-D. In addition, accumulated medical literature in the last few years pin point other conduction system disorders in addition to the major well-known indication of the LBBB as potential indications for CRT. Those indications were based on evidence derived from sub-analyses from the landmark trials and will be discussed in the next section.
4. Understanding the pathophysiological mechanism for becoming a CRT responder
The presence of intrinsic LV electrical dyssynchrony is considered to be the traditional electrical substrate of CRT. Mechanical inefficiency is the result of inefficient electrical-mechanical coupling ending up with triggering two main important outcomes: first is a hemodynamic disturbance in the form of reduced stroke volume and second structural deformation in the form of a cardiac remodeling process. Biventricular pacing, delivered by a CRT device, by correcting the dyssynchrony can improve both hemodynamic and structural derangements [23]. Studying ventricular activation time (known also as intrinsicoid deflection) and variability in activation sequence and passive conduction properties of normal hearts must be perceived very well for accurate comparison and assessment of ventricular dyssynchrony or other activation disorders [24]. Building on this important consideration, we in pacing communities must remind ourselves always of the fact that biventricular pacing is never physiological. Biventricular pacing induces a stage of dyssynchronous electrical activation, remarkably observed at the level of the LV [25]. But with significant baseline electrical dyssynchrony, biventricular activation can be of benefit. Worsening of ventricular synchrony is expected in cases of little or no electrical dyssynchrony resulting in iatrogenic electrical dyssynchrony [25]. Being able to distinguish between patients that may or may not benefit from CRT, is based on a proper understanding of the true deviation from the normal activation pattern of ventricles and proper establishment of the presence of sufficient baseline electrical dyssynchrony.
Research projects supporting this important understanding in biventricular pacing science are multicenter randomized LESSER-EARTH (cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and a QRS complex <120 ms: the evaluation of resynchronization therapy for heart failure) in addition to ECHO-CRT (echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy) trials. Premature termination of patients with narrow QRS duration was elected due to safety concerns [26, 27].
4.1 LBBB is deficient criteria to diagnose CRT responders
Incorporating LBBB as ECG criteria to anticipate responders to CRT is proved to be deficient criteria in at least one-third of patients [28]. In the current CRT literature, there are multiple ‘criteria to define LBBB. Present examples are the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and Strauss. Clinical outcomes in terms of remodeling reversal, hospitalization for heart failure, survival rates differ between those classifications, as well as clinical outcomes after CRT. In addition, interpretation of slurring and notching differs according to the format and filtering of the ECG. Positioning of the lateral leads is also an important contributing factor. In addition, interpersonal differences in reading ECG impact the LBBB diagnosis [29]. Significant interobserver, and to a lesser extent, intraobserver variability in the classification of LBBB by the use of the various definitions have been documented. Despite applying specific LBBB criteria, 1 in every 5 or 6 ECG will be classified differently by a different observer. If the same observer is tested, 1 in 10 ECG will be classified differently [30]. This conceivably means that a significant proportion of the scientific publications on CRT is niether mentioned nor nonspecific. It is astonishing to know that QRS morphology was not associated with response to CRT with regard to morbidity and mortality in five randomized key CRT trials constituting meta-analysis of data from 3782 patients (CAREHF [Cardiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure], RAFT [Resynchronization/Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial], MIRACLE [Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation], MIRACLEICD [Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation—Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator], REVERSE [Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction]) [31, 32].
4.2 How to detect dominant left ward electrical delay (LED)
One of the best diagnostic modalities to diagnose electrical-mechanical coupling mismatch is endocardial electrical activation mapping where 3-dimensional electroanatomical reconstruction contact or noncontact mapping can be evaluated with extreme accuracy. Utilizing this unique diagnostic tool declare that in most patients with LBBB there is a dominant leftward electrical delay [33, 34, 35]. The ECG imaging or body surface mapping can display electrical activation sequences noninvasively. This predominant leftward electrical conduction delay is a critical component of the electrical substrate, which is amenable for CRT with expected electrical and mechanical derangements recovery.
4.3 The electrical substrate in Intraventricular conduction delay and CRT
A heterogenous and complex ventricular activation pattern, different from bundle branch pattern, is associated with IVCD. This is thought to be due to electrical disease in combination with the myocardial disease [35, 36]. Subjects with IVCD are known to have LV activation time shorter than LBBB subjects. In addition the latest activation time in IVCD is variable. In IVCD subjects electrical delay is not as advanced but there is evidence of underlying myocardial disease. This results in a less favorable response of CRT in IVCD subjects [33, 35, 37]. Ventricular activation studies displayed electrical conduction disturbance in IVCD similar to LBBB in 20–52% of IVCD subjects [33, 35, 37]. This group of patients has the potential of gaining the best advantage from CRT [3]. In patients with typical LBBB, change to atypical LBBB might be indicative of scar formation after myocardial infarction that may benefit from CRT. National Cardiovascular Data Registry Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (NCDR ICD) registry studied 11,505 CRT patients with non-LBBB, demonstrated that CRT implantation appeared to be associated with better outcomes than did implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy alone in IVCD patients with a QRS duration of > or =150 ms, but not in patients with QRS duration < 150 ms or RBBB [38].
4.4 The electrical substrate responsive to CRT in RBBB
In right bundle branch block (RBBB) subjects the RV is activated slowly after LV activation. This fact explains convincingly the failure of CRT in RBBB subjects. As a matter of fact conventional CRT induces, rather than resolves, electrical dyssynchrony in RBBB subjects. Preclinical research and computer simulations evaluating the hemodynamic consequences of RBBB failing heart document this state of dyssynchrony in this subset of patients [39, 40]. There was no significant difference in total and regional LV endocardial activation times between RBBB and LBBB patients [34]. This fact is not a contradiction to the fact of dyssynchrony induced by CRT in RBBB. The conclusive statement here is that: RBBB subjects who have concomitantly sufficiently significant coexisting LV conduction delay, CRT will result in hemodynamic improvement [39].
4.5 Contribution of CRT to atrioventricular dyssynchrony
Ventricular resynchronization was thought to be the sole target of CRT. Atrioventricular conduction delay represented by prolonged PR interval in the ECG was found to be a potential target for CRT [44]. Consequences of inefficient atrioventricular coupling are elevated LV end-diastolic pressure, diastolic mitral regurgitation, and reduced stroke work. Atrioventricular conduction disturbances are frequent findings in the heart failure population with an increased rate of hospitalization, atrial fibrillation, and mortalities [45]. CRT was found to be associated with worsened outcomes in prolonged PR intervals compared to normal patients in several nonrandomized trials [46, 47]. In contrast, subanalyses in two of the MADIT-CRT trial, investigating CRT effects on patients with non-LBBB and long PR interval, document reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality as well as heart failure hospitalization [48, 49, 50].
5. Response prediction of new echocardiographic mechanical dyssynchrony markers
5.1 Eye balling and time-based mechanical dyssynchrony markers
Accumulation of resynchronization trials knowledge demonstrated clearly that an important proportion of the CRT population is not responding. All-cause mortality combined including heart failure hospitalization, NYHA class, and patient global assessment were used in a heart failure clinical composite score (CCS) in Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE) and was not able to show improvement in 34% of patients [7, 51]. A special new concern group in today's trials are the non-LBBB subjects. The use of echocardiographic markers before 2008 for this important group was not able to show additive benefit of the use of echocardiographic markers to predict CRT in important landmark trials like PROSPECT (Predictors of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy), ECHO-CRT, and others [26]. Iatrogenic electropathy has been reported as a possible deleterious effect of biventricular pacing [52].
Incorporation of echocardiographic mechanical parameters to evaluate ventricular dyssynchrony contribute significantly to the improvement of the prognostic value of guideline-based patient selection for CRT [54, 55]. Reduction of all-cause mortality was associated with incorporation of the apical rocking and/or septal flash at baseline evaluation for CRT [56, 57]. Incorporation of mechanical dyssynchrony parameters as a selection criterion for CRT was associated with a significant reduction in LV end-systolic pressure in comparison to the old criteria based on QRS duration and morphology alone [55]. Despite those early promising outcome studies, not all non-LBBB with mechanical dyssynchrony have improved outcomes. Here it is wise to remember that absence of response, especially in the time dyssynchrony-based studies, might be related to a non-electrical disease that is not responding to CRT like myocardial hypocontractility and scaring, which are very frequent pathologies in the heart failure population. Future randomized control trials must consider those important discriminative factors.
5.2 Septal rebound stretch analysis for the prediction of volumetric response to cardiac resynchronization therapy
Utilizing detection of specific wall motion patterns to serve as markers for CRT response is the most recent advance in the investigation toward optimal response prediction for CRT [54, 58, 59, 60]. It is promising as a superior ventricular dyssynchrony measure tool compared to timing-based measures. Early septal contraction and delayed lateral wall activation give rise to myocardial stretching of the opposing wall during systole [54, 59, 61, 62]. This stretching is paradoxical systolic LV motion that is not contributing to LV ejection and, will result in waste of energy. This myocardial stretch and the resulting waste of energy can be converted to myocardial shortening when we perform biventricular pacing [58, 63, 64]. Systolic rebound stretch of the septum (SRSsept) refers to the amount of systolic stretching of the septum after initial systolic shortening (Figure 1). It is considered as a good indicator to reflect the potential for recovery of LV function with CRT and might be one of the best response indicators for resynchronization therapy [53, 58, 66]. Salden et al. and after their pioneering publication in the strategies to improve the selection of patients without typical LBBB for cardiac resynchronization therapy [67] and in a recent publication, published the first results from the multicenter study that investigated the association of baseline echocardiographic SRSsept with the volumetric response after CRT. They found that SRSsept is independently associated with favorable changes in LVESV post CRT. In addition, they found that for the prediction of volumetric response, assessment of SRSsept implies additional predictive information compared to visual assessment of apical rock alone. For assessment of subjects without strict LBBB criteria, SRSsept is an excellent echocardiographic discriminator to predict response to CRT [65]. We and others recommend incorporation of echocardiographic SRSspet for future prospective validation studies for CRT subjects evaluation.
6. Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is well known for its unprecedented image quality for cardiac structures as well as for functional assessment of cardiac functions. In addition, it has been introduced to CRT communities as a unique diagnostic tool in differentiating between the various causes of LV dysfunction. CMR is well known to be an excellent evaluating tool for critical factors in the potential response to CRT like a myocardial scar, the total amount of scar (scar burden), and scar location and its relationship to the pacing stimulus. The intricate arrangements of human heart myocardial fibers are a complex anisotropic fiber structure showing longitudinal, circumferential, and oblique layers that form a mechanical link between remote areas of the myocardium [68, 69, 70, 71]. Electrically heterogeneous conduction from endocardium to mid-myocardium and epicardium is also a feature of the human heart [72]. Conduction disturbances, superimposing in this inherent anatomical, functional, and electrical heterogeneity of the myocardium is expected to yield multiple areas of dyssynchrony [72, 73]. This finding raises the possibility that deploying an LV lead over a single site of late wall motion may not correct global cardiac dyssynchrony. By the same token, multiple LV leads may be preferable to one LV lead in some patients (Figure 2) [74].
With its unique discriminative and diagnostic accuracy, CMR has become the gold standard for the in vivo assessment of myocardial scarring. The cutoff point for scar burden, where more is associated with poor response to CRT, is different between different investigators but in general, we consider scar burden less than 15–33% is a potentially good indicator for better response to CRT [76, 77]. Another delicate feature of CMR contribution to CRT management is that CMR can be a fine assessment tool for diagnosing the substrate of heart failure. It is well known that myocardial infarctions can be silent in about one-third of patients and coronary angiography study can be normal after myocardial infarction. In addition, wall motion abnormalities are not equivalent to myocardial ischemia. Unparalleled anatomical imaging, combined with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE)-CMR findings, makes CMR an ideal radiation-free diagnostic tool for the actual heart failure substrate. Scarring in the subendocardial or transmural distribution along arterial territories is typical for infarcted myocardium. Lack of localized myocardial scarring is characteristic of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy or less often, by mid-wall LGE, characterized fibrosis. Myocarditis, sarcoidosis, and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy are characterized by the patchy distribution of LGE. Amyloidosis and Anderson-Fabry diseases are characterized by diffuse LGE.
7. Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by computed tomography
Although CMR is an excellent diagnostic tool for evaluating CRT response evaluation, the frequent presence of pacemakers in this group of patients renders its use limited especially in countries where MRI-compatible devices are not available. Non-response to CRT might be caused by factors other than dyssynchrony of electrical activation. Important hidden factors that must gain attention for non-responders are myocardial scar, myocardia hypocontractility, and suboptimal left ventricular (LV) lead location. All of these factors can be investigated with computed tomography (CT). Late iodine enhancement computed tomography (LIE-CT) was found to be an important elegant diagnostic modality in this regard. Théo Pezel et al. investigated CT dyssynchrony measurements for which the LV short-axis images from the multiphase reformatted reconstructions were used [78]. CT dyssynchrony indices used in their investigation were: global and segmental time to maximal wall thickness, global and segmental time to maximal inward wall motion, and time to minimum systolic volume. The dyssynchrony they measured were not the baseline dyssynchrony but the persistent dyssynchrony despite biventricular stimulation. LV lead malpositioning is a serious potentially avoidable reason for non-responders group. Pre-determination of LV lead positioning might be approached by invasive angiogram during implantation and CT coronary angiography. Short axis of the heart is used to determine LV lead final position as anterior, anterolateral, lateral, inferolateral, or inferior. In the long axis of the heart searched positions are basal, mid, or apical. Théo Pezel et al. evaluated concordance of the lead location to regional LV mechanical contraction, where they calculated the mean times to maximal wall thickness and maximal wall motion of each segment using an 8-segment model. Identification of the segment of the myocardium with the latest mean times to either maximal wall thickness or wall motion was determined. Greater global dyssynchrony, as measured by the time to maximal wall thickness, time to peak inward wall motion, and time-to-minimum systolic volume was found between non-responders. Greater segmental dyssynchrony between the anterior and inferior segments, between the inferoseptal and anterolateral segments, and between the anteroseptal and inferolateral segments was found between non-responders. In addition, in the non-responders, the LV lead location was less often concordant with the region of maximal wall thickness (9% vs. 72%, p = .001) [78].
In addition, CT was found to be an appropriate diagnostic tool to follow up the association of LV wall thickness and the ability to reverse LV remodeling and mitral regurgitation improvement after CRT [79].
8. Future directions to optimize cardiac resynchronization therapy
CRT is well known since its inception to be a promising electrical therapeutic device to treat CHF. After more than two decades in clinical use, we know that around 30–40% of CRT subjects do not exhibit any detectable clinical or echocardiographic benefit. As a matter of fact, some of them are deteriorating after resynchronization. For this reason, most of the discussion in this chapter and selected recent literature is devoted to non-responders toward optimizing resynchronization therapy [80, 81]. The special diagnostic tools mentioned earlier in this chapter are to refine our CRT subjects selection especially the subgroup without conspicuous LBBB criteria. Those special diagnostic tools can be still considered as future direction that has been started and in the way for mature applicable understandings in the field of CRT science.
8.1 Vectorcardiography guided cardiac resynchronization therapy
Vectorcardiography (VCG) was developed by E. Frank in the mid-1950s. The magnitude and direction of the electrical forces that are generated by the heart are recorded in 3-dimensional information format by means of a continuous series of vectors that form curving lines around a central point. The area under the 3-dimensional QRS complex (QRS area) is reflecting the electrical forces during depolarization and the area under the 3-dimensional T-wave (T area) is reflecting the electrical forces during repolarization. Volumetric response and survival after CRT were thought to be predicted strongly by the QRS area, but also T area and the sum of QRS and T areas (QRST area) [82, 83]. QRS area was also found repeatedly to be superior to QRS duration and morphology as a predictor of CRT response [28, 82, 84, 85]. One retrospective multicenter study displayed that this was true for a cohort of patients that received CRT and also for patients without a Class I indication for CRT according to American guideline recommendations [56] (QRS duration 120–149 ms or non-LBBB) [28]. Only the QRS area in these patients, was significantly associated with all-cause mortality. Reviewing volumetric CRT response, demonstrated that both QRS area and LBBB morphology were associated with an LV end-systolic volume reduction of = or >15 [28]. The advantage of the QRS area is that it is an objective measure and observer-independent parameter, whereas the definition for LBBB is subjective measure and operator-dependent. Variability in the QRS area is less than QRS duration as it is determined by QRS complex amplitude, not the beginning and end of the QRS complex [28]. VCG is not yet commercially available in clinical practice, but the QRS area is a promising non-invasive diagnostic evaluation tool for identifying possible CRT responders.
8.2 Improving our understanding of the biomechanics of cardiac electromechanical coupling and the contribution of spatial orientation of the ventricular muscle band to cardiac pumping functions
Perceiving heart pumping functions as a simple contraction of the bullet-shaped left ventricle is thought nowadays as a misunderstanding which contributes significantly to delaying the successful progress of electrical device treatment for heart failure. The process of contraction and myocardial stretch need more investigation at the cellular, as well as, at gross myocardial fibers orientation level. At the cellular level, electrical activation will trigger mechanical contraction via an intracellular calcium-dependent process known as excitation-contraction coupling. Disturbance of the process of cardiac myocyte intracellular calcium handling is a common feature of heart failure. At the organ scale, pump dysfunction is the end result of mechanical alterations secondary to electrical dyssynchrony in heart failure subjects. A reverse coupling between cardiac mechanics and electrophysiology is also well established. It is commonly referred to as
8.3 Endocardial left ventricular pacing
Challenges of transvenous LV lead implantation including limitations of coronary sinus (CS) anatomy, high LV pacing threshold, and/or phrenic nerve capture, have led to serious efforts to look for better alternatives [94]. As compared to standard epicardial LV pacing, pacing the LV endocardium reflects a more rapid and physiological activation of the left ventricle. Shetty AK et al have identified greater acute hemodynamic improvements with endocardial versus conventional LV pacing [95]. Subjects who demonstrated CRT non-response or known to have LV lead technical difficulties were evaluated in the alternate site cardiac resynchronization study. Endocardial LV lead placement was found to be safe and reported clinical and echocardiographic improvement in two-third of subjects [96]. An important drawback of this new trend of an implant is the need for anticoagulation and the reported few cases of thromboembolic events despite anticoagulation. The endocardial wireless stimulation for CRT (EBR Systems, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) incorporates a pacing system using a small ultrasound-responsive leadless electrode placed onto the LV endocardial surface [97]. The safety and performance of electrodes implanted in the left ventricle study is coming up with encouraging results. A total of 35 patients who had failed conventional CRT implant, underwent successful implant in 97% of the sample [93]. At 6 months, approximately two-thirds of patients demonstrated LV reverse remodeling with improved LVEF ≥5%. LV endocardial pacing seems to be a revolution creator in CRT practice in the present and future.
8.4 His bundle pacing and His-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy for electrical resynchronization in heart failure
In 1977, Narula et al. reported that the QRS complex may be normalized by pacing the distal His bundle in patients with LBBB [98]. Permanent pacing of the His bundle region to achieve ventricular resynchronizing has been described, with clear clinical advantages over traditional RV apical pacing [99, 100, 101, 102]. Medtronic has announced US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance and commercial launch for the SelectSite C304-HIS deflectable catheter system for use in procedures involving His bundle pacing (HBP). The physiologic benefit of permanent His bundle pacing (HBP) is theresult of synchronous electrical and mechanical activation with stimulation of both ventricles through the intrinsic His-Purkinje system. The anatomic site of the conduction disorder seen with BBB is frequently located proximally within the bundle of His, with longitudinal dissociation of the conducting fibers [103, 104]. Overall, it has been reported that approximately three quarters of BBB patients were found to respond with QRS narrowing using HB pacing [103]. Using epicardial electrocardiography (ECG), imaging Arnold et al, demonstrated that HB pacing was superior to biventricular pacing for restoring LV synchrony in selected patients with LBBB [105]. In the presence of distal BBB or the co-existence of IVCD, QRS may not normalize. In patients without complete LBBB correction, Vijayaramanet P et al demonstrated that His-optimized CRT (HOT-CRT) with synchronized LV pacing resulted in significant QRS duration narrowing [106, 107]. In patients with atrioventricular (AV) block in whom fusion with intrinsic His-Purkinje conduction cannot be achieved, HOT-CRT may provide the new therapeutic option. However, it is wise to remember that QRS duration reflects total ventricular activation time which is not always equivalent to a perfect marker of LV synchrony. HOT-CRT was found to be a novel approach to further optimize electrical resynchronization by combining the concept of fused adaptive LV pacing with HBP.
9. Conclusion
CHF is one of the most important epidemics in the current human species era affecting 1–2% of adults and around 10% of >70 years old in developed countries. In addition to its psychophysiological and social burden, the economic impact of CHF on the world nations is Gargantum. Treatment options for CHF witnessed relative stagnation until 2001, where the first electrical device in the form of biventricular pacing to resynchronize the failing desynchronized ventricles, was implanted in 2001. In spite of the early excitement for this type of therapy most international landmark trials reported 30–40% of non-responders. Factors contributing to this large proportion of non-responders are related to scar burden and scar localization to the vicinity of the LV pacing stimulus, hypocontractility, and the degree of pre-implant mechanical dyssynchrony. It was surprising to medical communities to discover that a significant proportion of CHF without LBBB responds to CRT. This chapter is a scientific journey to understand the pathophysiological mechanism to optimize the selection of CRT responders. We confirm that LBBB is deficient criteria for selecting CHF patients for CRT. A spectrum of ventricular conduction disorders that might benefit from CRT, as derived from landmark trials were discussed including IVCD and RBBB. New techniques to detect dominant left ward electrical delay (LED) including endocardial 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping and ECG imaging or body surface mapping to display electrical activation sequences as well as the elaboration of the best electrical substrate to optimize response to CRT in IVCD, RBBB, and atrioventricular delay are discussed. Determination of pre-implant degree of dyssynchrony is critical as pacing is known to induce more dyssynchrony for mild cases at the baseline with clinical and hemodynamic compromise. For this reason, special attention in this chapter was devoted to new echocardiographic mechanical dyssynchrony markers like eyeballing, septal flash, and time-based mechanical dyssynchrony markers. Systolic septal rebound stretch (SRSsept) was found to be an excellent echocardiographic discriminator to predict response to CRT. Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) was found to be an ideal radiation-free diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of the actual heart failure substrate and accordingly to optimize CRT responders selection. CRM is known to be the gold standard for scar diagnosis but is also considered to be an excellent diagnostic tool for fibrosis, myocarditis, sarcoidosis, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, amyloidosis, and Anderson-Fabry disease. Computed tomography is also an excellent tool to diagnose myocardial scar as well as for coronary venous system reconstruction images for optimal LV lead positioning. An innovative future direction for the best outcome of CRT is discussed. The non-invasive nature of vectorcardiography (VCG) with its strong prediction capabilities for volumetric as well as survival indicators after CRT, makes VCG an attractive adjunct diagnostic tool to optimize CRT responders selection. Improving our understanding of the biomechanics of cardiac electromechanical coupling and the contribution of the spatial orientation of the ventricular muscle band to cardiac pumping functions is creating a new visionary approach toward understanding the extent of LV mechanical dysfunction and perfective lead positioning in CRT subjects. New LV lead positions like pacing the LV endocardium reflect a more rapid and physiological activation of the left ventricle with excellent early results. Permanent pacing of the His bundle region to achieve ventricular resynchronizing has been described, with clear clinical advantages over biventricular pacing. Progressive narrowing in QRS duration was documented with HB pacing compared to conventional CRT with the best narrowing was gained with His-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (HOT-CRT). This multi-disciplinary approach to optimize CRT response is promising for a better future of resynchronization therapy aiming toward the best possible quality of life for this important group of CHF subjects in the next decades.
References
- 1.
Braunwald E, Epstein SE, Glick G, Wechsler AS, Braunwald NS. Relief of angina pectoris by electrical stimulation of the carotid-sinus nerves. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1967; 277 (24):1278-1283. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM196712142772402 - 2.
Aaronson KD, Schwartz JS, Chen TM, Wong KL, Goin JE, Mancini DM. Development and prospective validation of a clinical index to predict survival in ambulatory patients referred for cardiac transplant evaluation. Circulation. 1997; 95 :2660-2667 - 3.
Baldasseroni S, Opasich C, Gorini M, et al. Left bundle-branch block is associated with increased 1-year sudden and total mortality rate in 5517 outpatients with congestive heart failure: A report from the Italian network on congestive heart failure. American Heart Journal. 2002; 143 :398-405 - 4.
Stellbrink C, Nowak B. The importance of being synchronous: On the prognostic value of ventricular conduction delay in heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2002; 40 :2031-2033 - 5.
Foster AH, Gold MR, McLaughlin JS. Acute hemodynamic effects of atrio-biventricular pacing in humans. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 1995; 59 :294-300 - 6.
Leclercq C, Cazeau S, Le Breton H, et al. Acute hemodynamic effects of biventricular DDD pacing in patients with end-stage heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1998; 32 :1825-1831 - 7.
Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, Delurgio DB, Leon AR, Loh E, et al. Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2002; 346 :1845-1853 - 8.
Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, Krueger S, Kass DA, De Marco T, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2004; 350 (21):2140-2150. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa032423. PMID: 15152059 - 9.
Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, Freemantle N, Gras D, Kappenberger L, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. New England Journal of Medicine. 2005; 352 :1539-1154 - 10.
Tang ASL, Wells GA, Talajic M, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 363 :2385-2395. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009540 - 11.
Linde C, Abraham WT, Gold MR, St John Sutton M, Ghio S, Daubert C, et al. Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and previous heart failure symptoms. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008; 52 (23):1834-1843. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.027. Epub 2008 Nov 7. PMID: 19038680 - 12.
Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Klein H, Brown MW, Daubert JP, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart failure events. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009; 361 :1329-1338 - 13.
Abraham WT, Young JB, León AR, Adler S, Bank AJ, Hall SA, et al. Effects of cardiac resynchronization on disease progression in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, an indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and mildly symptomatic chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2004; 110 (18):2864-2868. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000146336.92331.D1 Epub 2004 Oct 25. PMID: 15505095 - 14.
Gi-Byoung Nam recent clinical trials on cardiac resynchronization therapy. International Journal of Arrhythmia. 2012; 13 (3):17-21 - 15.
Normand C, Linde C, Singh J, Dickstein K. Indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A comparison of the major international guidelines. JACC: Heart Failure. 2018; 6 :308-316 - 16.
Stavrakis S, Lazzara R, Thadani U. The benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy and QRS duration: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2012; 23 :163-168 - 17.
Kang SH, Oh IY, Kang DY, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy and QRS duration: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2015; 30 :24-33 - 18.
Boriani G, Nesti M, Ziacchi M, Padeletti L. Cardiac resynchronization therapy: An overview on guidelines. Heart Failure Clinics. 2017; 13 :117-137 - 19.
Chung ES, Leon AR, Tavazzi L, et al. Results of the predictors of response to CRT (PROSPECT) trial. Circulation. 2008; 117 :2608-2616 - 20.
Prinzen FW, Vernooy K, Auricchio A. Circulation. 2013; 128 (22):2407-2418. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000112 - 21.
Nakai T, Ikeya Y, Mano H, Kogawa R, Watanabe R, Arai M, et al. Efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with a narrow QRS complex. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2021: Article ID 8858836, 7 p. DOI: 10.1155/2021/8858836 - 22.
Theuns DAMJ, Schaer BA, Caliskan K, Hoeks SE, Sticherling C, Yap SC, et al. Application of the heart failure meta-score to predict prognosis in patients with cardiac resynchronization defibrillators. International Journal of Cardiology. 2021; 330 :73-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.01.011 - 23.
Vernooy K, Cornelussen RNM, Verbeek XAAM, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy cures dyssynchronopathy in canine left bundle-branch block hearts. European Heart Journal. 2007; 28 :2148-2155 - 24.
Cardone-Noott L, Bueno-Orovio A, Minchole A, Zemzemi N, Rodriguez B. Human ventricular activation sequence and the simulation of the electrocardiographic QRS complex and its variability in healthy and intraventricular block conditions. Europace. 2016; 18 :iv4-iv15. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euw346 - 25.
Ploux S, Eschalier R, Whinnett ZI, et al. Electrical dyssynchrony induced by biventricular pacing: Implications for patient selection and therapy improvement. Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12 :782-791 - 26.
Ruschitzka F, Abraham WT, Singh JP, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure with a narrow QRS complex. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2013; 10 :1395-1405 - 27.
Thibault B, Harel F, Ducharme A, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and a QRS complex <12 msec: The evaluation of resynchronization therapy for heart failure (LESSER-EARTH) trial. Circulation. 2013; 127 :873-881 - 28.
Van Stipdonk AMW, Horst I, Kloosterman M, et al. QRS area is a strong determinant of outcome in cardiac resynchronization. Circulation. Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2018; 11 :E006497 - 29.
Van Stipdonk AMW, Vanbelle S, ter Horst IAH, et al. Large variability in clinical judgement and definitions of left bundle branch block to identify candidates for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. International Journal of Cardiology. 2019; 286 :61-65 - 30.
Zareba W, Klein H, Cygankiewicz I, et al. Effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy by QRS morphology in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT). Circulation. 2011; 123 :1061-1072 - 31.
Gold MR, Thébault C, Linde C, et al. Effect of QRS duration and morphology on cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes in mild heart failure: Results from the Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction (REVERSE) study. Circulation. 2012; 126 :822-829 - 32.
Cleland JG, Abraham WT, Linde C, et al. An individual patient meta-analysis of five randomized trials assessing the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure. European Heart Journal. 2013; 34 :3547-3556 - 33.
Ploux S, Lumens J, Whinnett Z, et al. Noninvasive electrocardiographic mapping to improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy: Beyond QRS duration and left bundle branch block morphology. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013; 61 :2435-2443 - 34.
Fantoni C, Kawabata M, Massaro R, et al. Right and left ventricular activation sequence in patients with heart failure and right bundle branch block: A detailed analysis using three-dimensional nonfluoroscopic electroanatomic mapping system. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2005; 16 :112-119; discussion 120-1 - 35.
Derval N, Duchateau J, Mahida S, et al. Distinctive left ventricular activations associated with ECG pattern in heart failure patients. Circulation. Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2017; 10 :E005073 - 36.
Eschalier R, Ploux S, Ritter P, Haissaguerre M, Ellenbogen KA, Bordachar P. Nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay: Definitions, prognosis, and implications for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12 :1071-1079 - 37.
Van Stipdonk A, Mafi Rad M, Luermans JGLM, Crijns HJ, Prinzen FW, Vernooy K. Identifying delayed left ventricular lateral wall activation in patients with non-specific intraventricular conduction delay using coronary venous electroanatomical mapping. Netherlands Heart Journal. 2016; 24 :58-65 - 38.
Kawata H, Bao H, Curtis JP, et al. Cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy for nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay versus right bundle branch block. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019; 73 :3082-3099 - 39.
Auricchio A, Lumens J, Prinzen FW. Does cardiac resynchronization therapy benefit patients with right bundle branch block: Cardiac resynchronization therapy has a role in patients with right bundle branch block. Circulation. Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2014; 7 :532-542 - 40.
Byrne MJ, Helm RH, Daya S, et al. Diminished left ventricular dyssynchrony and impact of resynchronization in failing hearts with right versus left bundle branch block. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2007; 50 :1484-1490 - 41.
Rosenbaum MB. Types of left bundle branch block and their clinical significance. Journal of Electrocardiology. 1969; 2 :197-206 - 42.
Tzogias L, Steinberg LA, Williams AJ, et al. Electrocardiographic features and prevalence of bilateral bundle-branch delay. Circulation. Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2014; 7 :640-644 - 43.
Leeters IPM, Davis A, Zusterzeel R, et al. Left ventricular regional contraction abnormalities by echocardiographic speckle tracking in combined right bundle branch with left anterior fascicular block compared to left bundle branch block. Journal of Electrocardiology. 2016; 49 :353-361 - 44.
Salden FCWM, Kutyifa V, Stockburger M, Prinzen FW, Vernooy K. Atrioventricular dromotropathy: Evidence for a distinctive entity in heart failure with prolonged PR interval? Europace. 2017; 20 :1067-1077 - 45.
Kwok CS, Rashid M, Beynon R, et al. Prolonged PR interval, first-degree heart block and adverse cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2016; 102 :672-680 - 46.
Friedman DJ, Bao H, Spatz ES, Curtis JP, Daubert JP, Al-Khatib SM. Association between a prolonged PR interval and outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy: A report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation. 2016; 134 :1617-1628 - 47.
Januszkiewicz Ł, Vegh E, Borgquist R, et al. Prognostic implication of baseline PR interval in cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients. Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12 :2256-2262 - 48.
Kutyifa V, Stockburger M, Daubert JP, et al. PR interval identifies clinical response in patients with non-left bundle branch block: A Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy substudy. Circulation. Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2014; 7 :645-651 - 49.
Lin J, Buhr KA, Kipp R. Effect of PR interval on outcomes following cardiac resynchronization therapy: A secondary analysis of the COMPANION trial. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2017; 28 :185-191 - 50.
Olshansky B, Day JD, Sullivan RM, Young P, Galle E, Steinberg JS. Does cardiac resynchronization therapy provide unrecognized benefit in patients with prolonged PR intervals? The impact of restoring atrioventricular synchrony: An analysis from the COMPANION trial. Heart Rhythm. 2012; 9 :34-39 - 51.
Packer M. Proposal for a new clinical end point to evaluate the efficacy of drugs and devices in the treatment of chronic heart failure. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 2001; 7 :176-182 - 52.
Jackson T, Claridge S, Behar J, Sammut E, Webb J, Carr-White G, et al. Narrow QRS systolic heart failure: Is there a target for cardiac resynchronization? Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy. 2015; 13 (7):783-797. DOI: 10.1586/14779072.2015.1049945 - 53.
Leenders GE, De Boeck BWL, Teske AJ, et al. Septal rebound stretch is a strong predictor of outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 2012; 18 :404-412 - 54.
Gorcsan J III, Anderson CP, Tayal B, et al. Systolic stretch characterizes the electromechanical substrate responsive to cardiac resynchronization therapy. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2019; 12 :1741-1752 - 55.
Beela AS, Serkan U, Ciarka A, et al. Assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony can improve the prognostic value of guideline based patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy. European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging. 2019; 20 :66-74 - 56.
Tracy CM, Epstein AE, Darbar D, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013; 61 :e6-e75 - 57.
Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC): Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. European Heart Journal. 2016; 37 :2129-2200 - 58.
De Boeck BWL, Teske AJ, Meine M, Leenders GE, Cramer MJ, Prinzen FW, et al. Septal rebound stretch reflects the functional substrate to cardiac resynchronization therapy and predicts volumetric and neurohormonal response. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2009; 11 :863-871 - 59.
Lumens J, Tayal B, Walmsley J, Delgado-Montero A, Huntjens PR, Schwartzman D, et al. Differentiating electromechanical from non-electrical substrates of mechanical discoordination to identify responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2015; 8 :e003744 - 60.
Risum N, Tayal B, Hansen TF, Bruun NE, Jensen MT, Lauridsen TK, et al. Identification of typical left bundle branch block contraction by strain echocardiography is additive to electrocardiography in prediction of long-term outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015; 66 :631-641 - 61.
Prinzen FW, Hunter WC, Wyman BT, Mcveigh ER. Mapping of regional myocardial strain and work during ventricular pacing: Experimental study using magnetic resonance imaging tagging. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1999; 33 :1735-1742 - 62.
Leenders GE, Lumens J, Cramer MJ, De Boeck BWL, Doevendans PA, Delhaas T, et al. Septal deformation patterns delineate mechanical dyssynchrony and regional differences in contractility analysis of patient data using a computer model. Circulation. Heart Failure. 2012; 5 :87-96 - 63.
Galli E, Leclercq C, Fournet M, Hubert A, Bernard A, Smiseth OA, et al. Value of myocardial work estimation in the prediction of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2018; 31 :220-230 - 64.
Smiseth OA, Russell K, Skulstad H. The role of echocardiography in quantification of left ventricular dyssynchrony: State of the art and future directions Otto. European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging. 2012; 13 :61-68 - 65.
Salden OAE, Zweerink A, Wouters P, Allaart CP, Geelhoed B, de Lange FJ, et al. The value of septal rebound stretch analysis for the prediction of volumetric response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. European Heart Journal—Cardiovascular Imaging. 2021; 22 (1):37-45. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jeaa190 - 66.
Van Sant J, Horst IAH, Wijers SC, Mast TP, Leenders GE, Doevendans PA, et al. Measurements of electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony are both essential to improve prediction of CRT response. Journal of Electrocardiology. 2015; 48 :601-608 - 67.
Salden OAE, Vernooy K, van Stipdonk AMW, Cramer MJ, Prinzen FW, Meine M. Strategies to improve selection of patients without typical left bundle branch block for cardiac resynchronization therapy. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2020; 6 (2):129-142. ISSN 2405-500X. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2019.11.018 - 68.
Torrent-Guasp F, Kocica MJ, Corno AF, Komeda M, Carreras-Costa F, Flotats A, et al. Towards new understanding of the heart structure and function. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2005; 27 :191-201 - 69.
Greenbaum RA, Ho SY, Gibson DG, Becker AE, Anderson RH. Left ventricular fibre architecture in man. British Heart Journal. 1981; 45 (3):248-263 - 70.
Yettram A, Vinson CA, Gibson DG. Effect of myocardial fibre architecture on the behaviour of the human left ventricle in diastole. Journal of Biomedical Engineering. 1983; 5 :321-328 - 71.
Antzelevitch C, Fish J. Electrical heterogeneity within the ventricular wall. Basic Research in Cardiology. 2001; 96 :517-527 - 72.
Cassidy D, Vassallo J, Miller J, Poll D, Buxton A, Marchinski F, et al. Endocardial catheter mapping in patients in sinus rhythm: Relationship to underlying heart disease and ventricular arrhythmias. Circulation. 1986; 73 :645-652 - 73.
Tournoux F, Donal E, Leclercq C, De Place C, Crocq C, Solnon A, et al. Concordance between mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony in heart failure patients: A function of the underlying cardiomyopathy? Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2007; 18 :1022-1027 - 74.
Leyva F. Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2010; 12 :64. DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-12-64 - 75.
Foley PW, Khadjooi K, Ward JA, Smith RE, Stegemann B, Frenneaux MP, et al. Radial dyssynchrony assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in relation to left ventricular function, myocardial scarring and QRS duration in patients with heart failure. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2009; 11 (1):50-56 - 76.
White JA, Yee R, Yuan X, Krahn A, Skanes A, Parker M, et al. Delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with intraventricular dyssynchrony. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2006; 48 (10):1953-1960 - 77.
Chalil S, Foley P, Muyhaldeen S, Patel K, Yousef Z, Smith R, et al. Late gadolinium enhancement-cardiovascular magnetic resonance as a predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Europace. 2007; 9 :1031-1037 - 78.
Pezel T, Mika D, Logeart D, et al. Characterization of non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy by post-procedural computed tomography. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2021; 44 :135-144. DOI: 10.1111/pace.14134 - 79.
Galand V, Ghoshhajra B, Szymonifka J, Das S, Orencole M, Barré V, et al. Left ventricular wall thickness assessed by cardiac computed tomography and cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes. EP Europace. 2020; 22 (3):401-411. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euz322 - 80.
McAlister FA, Ezekowitz J, Hooton N, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: A systematic review. JAMA. 2007; 297 :2502-2514 - 81.
Fornwalt BK, Sprague WW, BeDell P, et al. Agreement is poor among current criteria used to define response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation. 2010; 121 :1985-1991 - 82.
Emerek K, Friedman DJ, Sørensen PL, et al. Vectorcardiographic QRS area is associated with long-term outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16 :213-219 - 83.
Engels EB, Végh EM, Van Deursen CJ, Vernooy K, Singh JP, Prinzen FW. T-wave area predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with left bundle branch block. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2015; 26 :176-183 - 84.
Van Deursen CJM, Vernooy K, Dudink E, et al. Vectorcardiographic QRS area as a novel predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Journal of Electrocardiology. 2015; 48 :45-52 - 85.
Maass AH, Vernooy K, Wijers SC, et al. Refining success of cardiac resynchronization therapy using a simple score predicting the amount of reverse ventricular remodelling: Results from the Markers and Response to CRT (MARC) study. Ep Europace. 2018; 20 :e1-e10 - 86.
Pfeiffer ER, Tangney JR, Omens JH, McCulloch AD. Biomechanics of cardiac electromechanical coupling and mechanoelectric feedback. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 2014; 136 (2):021007. DOI: 10.1115/1.4026221 - 87.
Torrent-Guasp F. Anatomía Funcional del Corazón. Madrid: PazMontalbo; 1957 - 88.
Torrent-Guasp F. An Experimental Approach in Heart Dynamics Physiology and Pharmacology. Eugene Talmadge Hospital. Augusta (GA). Madrid: S. Aguirre Torre; 1959 - 89.
Streeter DD, Torrent-Guasp F. Geodesic paths in the left ventricle of the mammalian heart. Circulation. 1973; 48 :471-477 - 90.
Streeter DD, Powers WE, Ross MA, Torrent-Guasp F. Three-dimensional fiber orientation in the mammalian left ventricular wall. In: Barn J, Noordegraf A, Raines J, editors. Cardiovascular System Dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1978. p. 73 - 91.
Torrent-Guasp F. Estructura y función del corazón. Revista Española de Cardiología. 1998; 51 :91-102 - 92.
Ballester-Rodés M, Flotats A, Torrent-Guasp F, Carrió-Gasset I, Ballester-Alomar M, Carreras F, et al. The sequence of regional ventricular motion. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2006;29(Suppl_1):S139–S144. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.02.058 - 93.
Sengupta PP, Khandheria BK, Narula J. Twist and untwist mechanics of the left ventricle. Heart Failure Clinics. 2008; 4 (3):315-324. DOI: 10.1016/j.hfc.2008.03.001 - 94.
Reddy VY, Miller MA, Neuzil P, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with wireless left ventricular endocardial pacing: The SELECT-LV study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2017; 69 :2119-2129 - 95.
Shetty AK, Sohal M, Chen Z, et al. A comparison of left ventricular endocardial, multisite, and multipolar epicardial cardiac resynchronization: An acute haemodynamic and electroanatomical study. Europace. 2014; 16 :873-879 - 96.
Morgan JM, Biffi M, Gellér L, et al. ALternate Site Cardiac ResYNChronization (ALSYNC): A prospective and multicentre study of left ventricular endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy. European Heart Journal. 2016; 37 :2118-2127 - 97.
Auricchio A, Delnoy PP, Butter C, et al. Feasibility, safety, and short-term outcome of leadless ultrasoundbased endocardial left ventricular resynchronization in heart failure patients: Results of the wireless stimulation endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) study. Europace. 2014; 16 :681-688 - 98.
Narula OS. Longitudinal dissociation in the Hisbundle. Bundle branch block due to asynchronousconduction within the His bundle in man. Circulation. 1977; 56 :996-1006 - 99.
Lustgarten DL, Calame S, Crespo EM, Calame J, Lobel R, Spector PS. Electrical resynchronization induced by direct His-bundle pacing. Heart Rhythm. 2010; 7 :15-21 - 100.
Deshmukh P, Casavant DA, Romanyshyn M, Anderson K. Permanent, direct His-bundle pacing: A novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His-Purkinje activation. Circulation. 2000; 101 :869-877 - 101.
Barba-Pichardo R, Manovel Sanchez A, Fernandez-Gomez JM, Morina-Vazquez P, Venegas-Gamero J, Herrera-Carranza M. Ventricular resynchronization therapy by direct His-bundle pacing using an internal cardioverter defibrillator. Europace. 2013; 15 :83-88 - 102.
Sharma PS, Naperkowski A, Oren JW, Storm RH, Ellenbogen KA, Vijayaraman P. Permanent His-bundle pacing is feasible, safe, and superior to right ventricular pacing in routine clinical practice. Heart Rhythm. 2014; 0 :1-8 - 103.
Lee MY, Yeshwant SC, Lustgarten DL. Honing in on optimal ventricular pacing sites: An argument for his bundle pacing. Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2015; 17 :372 - 104.
Upadhyay GA, Cherian T, Shatz DY, et al. Intracardiac delineation of septal conduction in left bundle-branch block patterns. Circulation. 2019; 139 :1876-1888 - 105.
Teng AE, Massoud L, Ajijola OA. Physiological mechanisms of QRS narrowing in bundle branch block patients undergoing permanent His bundle pacing. Journal of Electrocardiology. 2016; 49 :644-648 - 106.
Arnold AD, Shun-Shin MJ, Keene D, et al. His resynchronization versus biventricular pacing inpatients with heart failure and left bundle branchblock. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018; 72 :3112-3122 - 107.
Vijayaraman P, Herweg B, Ellenbogen KA, Gajek J. His-optimized cardiac resynchronizationtherapy to maximize electrical resynchronization: a feasibility study. Circulation: Arrhythmia Electrophysiology. 2019; 12 :e006934