Rationale and design for ENHANCE CRT: QLV implant strategy for non-left bundle branch block patients

Jagmeet P Singh, Ronald D Berger, Rahul N Doshi, Michael Lloyd, Douglas Moore, Emile G Daoud, ENHANCE CRT Study Group, Jagmeet P Singh, Ronald D Berger, Rahul N Doshi, Michael Lloyd, Douglas Moore, Emile G Daoud, ENHANCE CRT Study Group

Abstract

Aims: Historically, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response in non-left bundle branch block (non-LBBB) patients has been suboptimal in comparison with that observed in left bundle branch block patients. The electrical activation pattern of the left ventricle (LV) is different between these two QRS morphologies. Small non-randomized studies have suggested that targeting the LV wall with greatest electrical delay may be superior to conventional anatomical pacing from the lateral wall in non-LBBB patients. This article outlines the design and rationale of a prospective, randomized, pilot study, which assesses the effect of a non-traditional LV lead implant strategy on the clinical composite score after 12 months of follow-up in a non-LBBB patient population.

Methods: All patients will receive an Abbott quadripolar CRT-D system (Quartet 1458Q LV lead with Unify Quadra™, Quadra Assura™ CRT-D or any market-approved CRT-D device with quadripolar pacing capabilities). Patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio between a QLV-based implant strategy vs. standard of care. Up to 250 patients will be enrolled in the study.

Conclusions: If the primary endpoint is achieved, this study will provide important information about reducing the non-responder rate in non-LBBB patients and provide further evidence for the QLV-based implant strategy.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01983293.

Keywords: Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Implant strategy; Non-LBBB; QLV; Quartet; RBBB.

© 2018 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
QLV measurement.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study flowchart. LAO, left anterior oblique; LV, left ventricular; MLWHF, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PA, posterioranterior; PGA, patient global assessment; RAO, right anterior oblique; QOL, quality of life.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Decision algorithm to classify response to cardiac resynchronization therapy treatment. NYHA, New York Heart Association.

References

    1. Birnie DH, Ha A, Higginson L, Sidhu K, Green M, Philippon F, Thibault B, Wells G, Tang A. Impact of QRS morphology and duration on outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy results from the Resynchronization–Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT). Circ Heart Fail 2013; 6: 1190–1198.
    1. Zareba W, Klein H, Cygankiewicz I, Hall WJ, McNitt S, Brown M, Cannom D, Daubert JP, Eldar M, Gold MR, Goldberger JJ, Goldenberg I, Lichstein E, Pitschner H, Rashtian M, Solomon S, Viskin S, Wang P, Moss AJ, on behalf of the MADIT‐CRT Investigators . 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.
    1. Stockburger M, Moss AJ, Klein HU, Zareba W, Goldenberg I, Biton Y, McNitt S, Kutyifa V. Sustained clinical benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in non‐LBBB patients with prolonged PR‐interval: MADIT‐CRT long‐term follow‐up. Clin Res Cardiol 2016; 105: 944–952.
    1. Gold MR, Thébault C, Linde C, Abraham WT, Gerritse B, Ghio S, St John Sutton M, Daubert JC. The 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.
    1. Sipahi I, Chou JC, Hyden M, Rowland DY, Simon DI, Fang JC. Effect of QRS morphology on clinical event reduction with cardiac resynchronization therapy: meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J 2012; 163: 260–267. e3.
    1. Cunnington C, Kwok CS, Satchithananda DK, Patwala A, Khan MA, Zaidi A, Ahmed FZ, Mamas MA. Cardiac resynchronisation therapy is not associated with a reduction in mortality or heart failure hospitalisation in patients with non‐left bundle branch block QRS morphology: meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart 2015; 101: 1456–1462.
    1. Zanon F, Baracca E, Pastore G, Fraccaro C, Roncon L, Aggio S, Noventa F, Mazza A, Prinzen F. Determination of the longest intra‐patient left ventricular electrical delay may predict acute hemodynamic improvement in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2014; 7: 377–383.
    1. Gold MR, Birgersdotter‐Green U, Singh JP, Ellenbogen KA, Yu Y, Meyer TE, Seth M, Tchou PJ. The relationship between ventricular electrical delay and left ventricular remodelling with cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 2516–2524.
    1. Singh JP, Fan D, Heist EK, Alabiad CR, Taub C, Reddy V, Mansour M, Picard MH, Ruskin JN, Mela T. Left ventricular lead electrical delay predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm 2006; 3: 1285–1292.
    1. Butter C, Auricchio A, Stellbrink C, Fleck E, Ding J, Yu Y, Huvelle E, Spinelli J; Pacing Therapy for Chronic Heart Failure II Study Group . Effect of resynchronization therapy stimulation site on the systolic function of heart failure patients. Circulation 2001; 104: 3026–3029.
    1. Packer M. Proposal for a new clinical end point to evaluate the efficacy of drugs and devices in the treatment of chronic heart failure. J Card Fail 2001; 7: 176–182.
    1. Nery PBHA, Keren A, Birnie DH. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and right bundle branch block: a systematic review. Heart Rhythm 2011; 8: 1083–1087.
    1. Peterson PN, Greiner MA, Qualls LG, al‐Khatib SM, Curtis JP, Fonarow GC, Hammill SC, Heidenreich PA, Hammill BG, Piccini JP, Hernandez AF, Curtis LH, Masoudi FA. QRS duration, bundle‐branch block morphology, and outcomes among older patients with heart failure receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. JAMA 2013; 310: 617–626.
    1. Fantoni C, Kawabata M, Massaro R, Regoli F, Raffa S, Arora V, Salerno‐Uriarte JA, Klein HU, Auricchio A. Right and left ventricular activation sequence in patients with heart failure and right bundle branch block: a detailed analysis using three‐dimensional non‐fluoroscopic electroanatomic mapping system. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2005; 16: 112–119.
    1. Takamatsu H, Tada H, Okaniwa H, Toide H, Maruyama H, Higuchi R, Kaseno K, Naito S, Kurabayashi M, Oshima S, Taniguchi K. Right bundle branch block and impaired left ventricular function as evidence of a left ventricular conduction delay. Circ J 2008; 72: 120–126.
    1. Hartlage GR, Suever JD, Clement‐Guinaudeau S, Strickland PT, Ghasemzadeh N, Magrath RP, Parikh A, Lerakis S, Hoskins MH, Leon AR, Lloyd MS, Oshinski JN. Prediction of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy using left ventricular pacing lead position and cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived wall motion patterns: a prospective cohort study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2015; 17: 57.
    1. Varma N. Left ventricular conduction delays and relation to QRS configuration in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol 2009; 103: 1578–1585.
    1. Polasek R, Kucera P, Nedbal P, Roubicek T, Belza T, Hanuliakova J, Horak D, Wichterle D, Kautzner J. Local electrogram delay recorded from left ventricular lead at implant predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: retrospective study with 1 year follow up. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2012; 12: 34.
    1. Kandala J, Upadhyay GA, Altman RK, Parks KA, Orencole M, Mela T, Kevin Heist E, Singh JP. QRS morphology, left ventricular lead location, and clinical outcome in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 2252–2262.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera