Contractility sensor-guided optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the RESPOND-CRT trial

Aims Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in patients with systolic heart failure (HF) and a wide QRS interval, a substantial proportion of patients remain non-responsive. The SonR contractility sensor embedded in the right atrial lead enables individualized automatic optimization of the atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) timings. The RESPOND-CRT study investigated the safety and efficacy of the contractility sensor system in HF patients undergoing CRT. Methods and results RESPOND-CRT was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Patients were randomized (2:1, respectively) to receive weekly, automatic CRT optimization with SonR vs. an Echo-guided optimization of AV and VV timings. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of clinical responders (patients alive, without adjudicated HF-related events, with improvement in New York Heart Association class or quality of life), at 12 months. The study randomized 998 patients. Responder rates were 75.0% in the SonR arm and 70.4% in the Echo arm (mean difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, −1.4% to 10.6%; P < 0.001 for non-inferiority margin −10.0%) (Table 2). At an overall mean follow-up of 548 ± 190 days SonR was associated with a 35% risk reduction in HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46–0.92; log-rank P = 0.01). Conclusion: Automatic AV and VV optimization using the contractility sensor was safe and as effective as Echo-guided AV and VV optimization in increasing response to CRT. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT0153423

Paroxysmal AF Catheter Ablation With a Contact Force Sensing Catheter Results of the Prospective, Multicenter SMART-AF Trial

AbstractBackgroundCatheter ablation is important for treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). Limited animal and human studies suggest a correlation between electrode-tissue contact and radiofrequency lesion generation.ObjectivesThe study sought to assess the safety and effectiveness of an irrigated, contact force (CF)-sensing catheter in the treatment of drug refractory symptomatic PAF.MethodsA prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study was conducted. Enrollment criteria included: ≥3 symptomatic episodes of PAF within 6 months of enrollment and failure of ≥1 antiarrhythmic drug (Class I to IV). Ablation included pulmonary vein isolation with confirmed entrance block as procedural endpoint.ResultsA total of 172 patients were enrolled at 21 sites, where 161 patients had a study catheter inserted and 160 patients underwent radiofrequency application. Procedural-related serious adverse events occurring within 7 days of the procedure included tamponade (n = 4), pericarditis (n = 3), heart block (n = 1, prior to radiofrequency application), and vascular access complications (n = 4). By Kaplan-Meier analyses, 12-month freedom from atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia recurrence was 72.5%. The average CF per procedure was 17.9 ± 9.4 g. When the CF employed was between investigator selected working ranges ≥80% of the time during therapy, outcomes were 4.25 times more likely to be successful (p = 0.0054; 95% confidence interval: 1.53 to 11.79).ConclusionsThe SMART-AF trial demonstrated that this irrigated CF-sensing catheter is safe and effective for the treatment of drug refractory symptomatic PAF, with no unanticipated device-related adverse events. The increased percent of time within investigator-targeted CF ranges correlates with increased freedom from arrhythmia recurrence. Stable CF during radiofrequency application increases the likelihood of 12-month success. (THERMOCOOL® SMARTTOUCH® Catheter for Treatment of Symptomatic Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation; NCT01385202

Adaptive versus conventional cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure (AdaptResponse): a global, prospective, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Continuous automatic optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), stimulating only the left ventricle to fuse with intrinsic right bundle conduction (synchronised left ventricular stimulation), might offer better outcomes than conventional CRT in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and normal atrioventricular conduction. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of adaptive CRT versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure with intact atrioventricular conduction and left bundle branch block. METHODS: This global, prospective, randomised controlled trial was done in 227 hospitals in 27 countries across Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with class 2-4 heart failure, an ejection fraction of 35% or less, left bundle branch block with QRS duration of 140 ms or more (male patients) or 130 ms or more (female patients), and a baseline PR interval 200 ms or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via block permutation to adaptive CRT (an algorithm providing synchronised left ventricular stimulation) or conventional biventricular CRT using a device programmer. All patients received device programming but were masked until procedures were completed. Site staff were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were collected and reported in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02205359, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2014, and Jan 31, 2019, of 3797 patients enrolled, 3617 (95·3%) were randomly assigned (1810 to adaptive CRT and 1807 to conventional CRT). The futility boundary was crossed at the third interim analysis on June 23, 2022, when the decision was made to stop the trial early. 1568 (43·4%) of 3617 patients were female and 2049 (56·6%) were male. Median follow-up was 59·0 months (IQR 45-72). A primary outcome event occurred in 430 of 1810 patients (Kaplan-Meier occurrence rate 23·5% [95% CI 21·3-25·5] at 60 months) in the adaptive CRT group and in 470 of 1807 patients (25·7% [23·5-27·8] at 60 months) in the conventional CRT group (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·01; p=0·077). System-related adverse events were reported in 452 (25·0%) of 1810 patients in the adaptive CRT group and 440 (24·3%) of 1807 patients in the conventional CRT group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with conventional CRT, adaptive CRT did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation in the included population of patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and intact AV conduction. Death and heart failure decompensation rates were low with both CRT therapies, suggesting a greater response to CRT occurred in this population than in patients in previous trials. FUNDING: Medtronic