Rationale and design of the randomized multicentre His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE-HF) trial:HOPE HF Trial rationale and design

Aims In patients with heart failure and a pathologically prolonged PR interval, left ventricular (LV) filling can be improved by shortening atrioventricular delay using His‐bundle pacing. His‐bundle pacing delivers physiological ventricular activation and has been shown to improve acute haemodynamic function in this group of patients. In the HOPE‐HF (His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure) trial, we are investigating whether these acute haemodynamic improvements translate into improvements in exercise capacity and heart failure symptoms. Methods and results This multicentre, double‐blind, randomized, crossover study aims to randomize 160 patients with PR prolongation (≥200 ms), LV impairment (EF ≤ 40%), and either narrow QRS (≤140 ms) or right bundle branch block. All patients receive a cardiac device with leads positioned in the right atrium and the His bundle. Eligible patients also receive a defibrillator lead. Those not eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator have a backup pacing lead positioned in an LV branch of the coronary sinus. Patients are allocated in random order to 6 months of (i) haemodynamically optimized dual chamber His‐bundle pacing and (ii) backup pacing only, using the non‐His ventricular lead. The primary endpoint is change in exercise capacity assessed by peak oxygen uptake. Secondary endpoints include change in ejection fraction, quality of life scores, B‐type natriuretic peptide, daily patient activity levels, and safety and feasibility assessments of His‐bundle pacing. Conclusions Hope‐HF aims to determine whether correcting PR prolongation in patients with heart failure and narrow QRS or right bundle branch block using haemodynamically optimized dual chamber His‐bundle pacing improves exercise capacity and symptoms. We aim to complete recruitment by the end of 2018 and report in 2020

Standard care vs. TRIVEntricular pacing in Heart Failure (STRIVE HF): a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial of triventricular pacing vs. conventional biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intermediate QRS left bundle branch block

AIMS: To determine whether triventricular (TriV) pacing is feasible and improves CRT response compared to conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and intermediate QRS prolongation (120-150 ms). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between October 2015 and November 2019, 99 patients were recruited from 11 UK centres. Ninety-five patients were randomized 1:1 to receive TriV or BiV pacing systems. The primary endpoint was feasibility of TriV pacing. Secondary endpoints assessed symptomatic and remodelling response to CRT. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. In the TriV group, 43/46 (93.5%) patients underwent successful implantation vs. 47/49 (95.9%) in the BiV group. Feasibility of maintaining CRT at 6 months was similar in the TriV vs. BiV group (90.0% vs. 97.7%, P = 0.191). All-cause mortality was similar between TriV vs. BiV groups (4.3% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.678). There were no significant differences in echocardiographic LV volumes or clinical composite scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups. CONCLUSION: Implantation of two LV leads to deliver and maintain TriV pacing at 6 months is feasible without significant complications in the majority of patients. There was no evidence that TriV pacing improves CRT response or provides additional clinical benefit to patients with LBBB and intermediate QRS prolongation and cannot be recommended in this patient group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02529410

A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial of cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by invasive dP/dt

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/dt(max) 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 <10%; P < 0.001). Procedure duration and fluoroscopy times were longer in the pressure wire–guided arm (104 ± 39 minutes vs 142 ± 39 minutes; P < .001 and 20 ±16 minutes vs 28 ± 15 minutes; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: AHR determined by invasively measuring LV dP/dt(max) during BIV pacing predicts reverse remodeling 6 months after CRT. Patients in whom LV dP/dt(max) was used to guide LV lead placement demonstrated better rates of reverse remodeling

Standard care vs. TRIVEntricular pacing in Heart Failure (STRIVE HF):a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial of triventricular pacing vs. conventional biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intermediate QRS left bundle branch block

AIMS: To determine whether triventricular (TriV) pacing is feasible and improves CRT response compared to conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and intermediate QRS prolongation (120–150 ms). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between October 2015 and November 2019, 99 patients were recruited from 11 UK centres. Ninety-five patients were randomized 1:1 to receive TriV or BiV pacing systems. The primary endpoint was feasibility of TriV pacing. Secondary endpoints assessed symptomatic and remodelling response to CRT. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. In the TriV group, 43/46 (93.5%) patients underwent successful implantation vs. 47/49 (95.9%) in the BiV group. Feasibility of maintaining CRT at 6 months was similar in the TriV vs. BiV group (90.0% vs. 97.7%, P = 0.191). All-cause mortality was similar between TriV vs. BiV groups (4.3% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.678). There were no significant differences in echocardiographic LV volumes or clinical composite scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups. CONCLUSION: Implantation of two LV leads to deliver and maintain TriV pacing at 6 months is feasible without significant complications in the majority of patients. There was no evidence that TriV pacing improves CRT response or provides additional clinical benefit to patients with LBBB and intermediate QRS prolongation and cannot be recommended in this patient group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02529410