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

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

Comprehensive use of cardiac computed tomography to guide left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BackgroundOptimal lead positioning is an important determinant of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate cardiac computed tomography (CT) selection of the optimal epicardial vein for left ventricular (LV) lead placement by targeting regions of late mechanical activation and avoiding myocardial scar.MethodsEighteen patients undergoing CRT upgrade with existing pacing systems underwent preimplant electrocardiogram-gated cardiac CT to assess wall thickness, hypoperfusion, late mechanical activation, and regions of myocardial scar by the derivation of the stretch quantifier for endocardial engraved zones (SQUEEZ) algorithm. Cardiac venous anatomy was mapped to individualized American Heart Association (AHA) bull's-eye plots to identify the optimal venous target and compared with acute hemodynamic response (AHR) in each coronary venous target using an LV pressure wire.ResultsFifteen data sets were evaluable. CT-SQUEEZ-derived targets produced a similar mean AHR compared with the best achievable AHR (20.4% ± 13.7% vs 24.9% ± 11.1%; P = .36). SQUEEZ-derived guidance produced a positive AHR in 92% of target segments, and pacing in a CT-SQUEEZ target vein produced a greater clinical response rate vs nontarget segments (90% vs 60%).ConclusionPreprocedural CT-SQUEEZ-derived target selection may be a valuable tool to predict the optimal venous site for LV lead placement in patients undergoing CRT upgrade

Comprehensive use of cardiac computed tomography to guide left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BackgroundOptimal lead positioning is an important determinant of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate cardiac computed tomography (CT) selection of the optimal epicardial vein for left ventricular (LV) lead placement by targeting regions of late mechanical activation and avoiding myocardial scar.MethodsEighteen patients undergoing CRT upgrade with existing pacing systems underwent preimplant electrocardiogram-gated cardiac CT to assess wall thickness, hypoperfusion, late mechanical activation, and regions of myocardial scar by the derivation of the stretch quantifier for endocardial engraved zones (SQUEEZ) algorithm. Cardiac venous anatomy was mapped to individualized American Heart Association (AHA) bull's-eye plots to identify the optimal venous target and compared with acute hemodynamic response (AHR) in each coronary venous target using an LV pressure wire.ResultsFifteen data sets were evaluable. CT-SQUEEZ-derived targets produced a similar mean AHR compared with the best achievable AHR (20.4% ± 13.7% vs 24.9% ± 11.1%; P = .36). SQUEEZ-derived guidance produced a positive AHR in 92% of target segments, and pacing in a CT-SQUEEZ target vein produced a greater clinical response rate vs nontarget segments (90% vs 60%).ConclusionPreprocedural CT-SQUEEZ-derived target selection may be a valuable tool to predict the optimal venous site for LV lead placement in patients undergoing CRT upgrade

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

Effects of haemodynamically atrio‐ventricular optimized His‐pacing on heart failure symptoms and exercise capacity: the His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE‐HF) randomised, double‐blind, cross‐over trial

Aims: Excessive prolongation of PR interval impairs coupling of AV contraction, which reduces left ventricular pre-load and stroke volume, and worsens symptoms. His-bundle pacing allows AV-delay shortening while maintaining normal ventricular activation. HOPE-HF evaluated whether AV-optimized His pacing is preferable to no-pacing, in double-blind cross-over fashion, in patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, PR interval ≥200ms and either QRS ≤140ms or right BBB. Methods and Results: Patients had atrial and His-bundle leads implanted (and an ICD lead if clinically indicated) and were randomized, to 6-months of pacing and 6-months of no-pacing utilizing a cross-over design. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake during symptom-limited exercise. Quality of life, LVEF and patients’ holistic symptomatic preference between arms were secondary outcomes. 167 patients were randomized: 90% men, 69±10 years, QRS duration 124±26ms, PR interval 249±59ms, LVEF 33±9%. Neither peak VO2 (+0.25 ml/min/kg, 95% CI -0.23 to +0.73, p=0.3) nor LVEF (+0.5%, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.6, p=0.4) changed with pacing but Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life improved significantly (-3.7, 95% CI -7.1 to -0.3, p=0.03). 76% of patients preferred His-bundle pacing-on and 24% pacing-off (p&lt;0.0001). Conclusion: His-bundle pacing did not increase peak oxygen uptake but, under double-blind conditions, significantly improved quality of life and was symptomatically preferred by the clear majority of patients. Ventricular pacing delivered via the His bundle did not adversely impact ventricular function during the 6 months

Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.)