Acute Hemodynamic Effects of Simultaneous and Sequential Multi-Point Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With an Expected Higher Rate of Sub-response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Results of Multicenter SYNSEQ Study

The aim of the SYNSEQ (Left Ventricular Synchronous vs. Sequential MultiSpot Pacing for CRT) study was to evaluate the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of simultaneous (3P-MPP syn) or sequential (3P-MPP seq) multi-3-point-left-ventricular (LV) pacing vs. single point pacing (SPP) in a group of patients at risk of a suboptimal response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Twenty five patients with myocardial scar or QRS ≤ 150 or the absence of LBBB (age: 66 ± 12 years, QRS: 159 ± 12 ms, NYHA class II/III, LVEF ≤ 35%) underwent acute hemodynamic assessment by LV + dP/dtmax with a variety of LV pacing configurations at an optimized AV delay. The change in LV + dP/dt max (%ΔLV + dP/dt max) with 3P-MPP syn (15.6%, 95% CI: 8.8%-22.5%) was neither statistically significantly different to 3P-MPP seq (11.8%, 95% CI: 7.6-16.0%) nor to SPP basal (11.5%, 95% CI:7.1-15.9%) or SPP mid (12.2%, 95% CI:7.9-16.5%), but higher than SPP apical (10.6%, 95% CI:5.3-15.9%, p = 0.03). AHR (defined as a %ΔLV + dP/dt max ≥ 10%) varied between pacing configurations: 36% (9/25) for SPP apical, 44% (11/25) for SPP basal, 54% (13/24) for SPP mid, 56% (14/25) for 3P-MPP syn and 48% (11/23) for 3P-MPP seq.Fifteen patients (15/25, 60%) had an AHR in at least one pacing configuration. AHR was observed in 10/13 (77%) patients with a LBBB but only in 5/12 (42%) patients with a non-LBBB (p = 0.11). To conclude, simultaneous or sequential multipoint pacing compared to single point pacing did not improve the acute hemodynamic effect in a suboptimal CRT response population. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02914457

Performance of First Pacemaker to Use Smart Device App for Remote Monitoring

BACKGROUND: High adherence to remote monitoring (RM) in pacemaker (PM) patients improves outcomes; however, adherence remains suboptimal. Bluetooth low-energy (BLE) technology in newer-generation PMs enables communication directly with patient-owned smart devices using an app without a bedside console. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the success rate of scheduled RM transmissions using the app compared to other RM methods. METHODS: The BlueSync Field Evaluation was a prospective, international cohort evaluation, measuring the success rate of scheduled RM transmissions using a BLE PM or cardiac resynchronization therapy PM coupled with the MyCareLink Heart app. App transmission success was compared to 3 historical “control” groups from the Medtronic de-identified CareLink database: (1) PM patients with manual communication using a wand with a bedside console (PM manual transmission), (2) PM patients with wireless automatic communication with the bedside console (PM wireless); (3) defibrillator patients with similar automatic communication (defibrillator wireless). RESULTS: Among 245 patients enrolled (age 64.8±15.6 years, 58.4% men), 953 transmissions were scheduled through 12 months, of which 902 (94.6%) were successfully completed. In comparison, transmission success rates were 56.3% for PM manual transmission patients, 77.0% for PM wireless patients, and 87.1% for defibrillator wireless patients. Transmission success with the app was superior across matched cohorts based on age, sex, and device type (single vs dual vs triple chamber). CONCLUSION: The success rate of scheduled RM transmissions was higher among patients using the smart device app compared to patients using traditional RM using bedside consoles. This novel technology may improve patient engagement and adherence to RM

Acute Hemodynamic Effects of Simultaneous and Sequential Multi-Point Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With an Expected Higher Rate of Sub-response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy : Results of Multicenter SYNSEQ Study

The aim of the SYNSEQ (Left Ventricular Synchronous vs. Sequential MultiSpot Pacing for CRT) study was to evaluate the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of simultaneous (3P-MPP syn) or sequential (3P-MPP seq) multi-3-point-left-ventricular (LV) pacing vs. single point pacing (SPP) in a group of patients at risk of a suboptimal response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Twenty five patients with myocardial scar or QRS ≤ 150 or the absence of LBBB (age: 66 ± 12 years, QRS: 159 ± 12 ms, NYHA class II/III, LVEF ≤ 35%) underwent acute hemodynamic assessment by LV + dP/dtmax with a variety of LV pacing configurations at an optimized AV delay. The change in LV + dP/dt max (%ΔLV + dP/dt max) with 3P-MPP syn (15.6%, 95% CI: 8.8%-22.5%) was neither statistically significantly different to 3P-MPP seq (11.8%, 95% CI: 7.6-16.0%) nor to SPP basal (11.5%, 95% CI:7.1-15.9%) or SPP mid (12.2%, 95% CI:7.9-16.5%), but higher than SPP apical (10.6%, 95% CI:5.3-15.9%, p = 0.03). AHR (defined as a %ΔLV + dP/dt max ≥ 10%) varied between pacing configurations: 36% (9/25) for SPP apical, 44% (11/25) for SPP basal, 54% (13/24) for SPP mid, 56% (14/25) for 3P-MPP syn and 48% (11/23) for 3P-MPP seq.Fifteen patients (15/25, 60%) had an AHR in at least one pacing configuration. AHR was observed in 10/13 (77%) patients with a LBBB but only in 5/12 (42%) patients with a non-LBBB (p = 0.11). To conclude, simultaneous or sequential multipoint pacing compared to single point pacing did not improve the acute hemodynamic effect in a suboptimal CRT response population.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02914457