Strategies to Improve Selection of Patients Without Typical Left Bundle Branch Block for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is becoming increasingly controversial in patients without typical left bundle branch block (LBBB). Yet, several recent studies displayed that a distinct subpopulation of patients with non-LBBB does benefit from CRT. Patients with non-LBBB should, therefore, not as a group be withheld from a potentially very beneficial therapy. Unfortunately, current clinical practice lacks validated selection criteria that may identify possible CRT responders in the non-LBBB subgroup. Consequently, clinical decision making in these patients is often challenging. A few studies, strongly differing in design, have proposed additive selection criteria for improved response prediction in patients with non-LBBB. There is accumulating evidence that more sophisticated echocardiographic dyssynchrony markers, taking into account the underlying electrical substrate responsive to CRT, can aid in the selection of patients with a non-LBBB who may benefit more favorably from CRT. Furthermore, it is important that cardiologists are aware of the shortcomings of current electrocardiographic selection criteria for CRT. Whereas these criteria provide an evidence-based approach for selecting patients for CRT, they do not necessarily guarantee the most optimal strategy for patient selection. Parameters obtained with vectorcardiography, such as QRS area, show potential to overcome the shortcomings of conventional electrocardiographic selection criteria and may improve response prediction regardless of QRS morphology

Association between heart failure aetiology and magnitude of echocardiographic remodelling and outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS: Echocardiographic response after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is often lesser in ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) than non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) patients. We assessed the association of heart failure aetiology on the amount of reverse remodelling and outcome of CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-eight CRT patients were retrospectively included. Reverse remodelling and endpoint occurrence (all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation) was assessed. Two response definitions [≥15% reduction left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) and ≥5% improvement left ventricular ejection fraction] and the most accurate cut-off for the amount of reverse remodelling that predicted endpoint freedom were assessed. Mean follow-up was 3.8 ± 2.4 years. ICM was present in 47%. ICM patients who were older (69 ± 7 vs. 63 ± 11), more often men (83% vs. 58%), exhibited less LVESV reduction (13 ± 31% vs. 23 ± 32%) and less left ventricular ejection fraction improvement (5 ± 11% vs. 10 ± 12%) than NIDCM patients (all P < 0.001). Nevertheless, every 1% LVESV reduction was associated with a relative reduction in endpoint occurrence: NIDCM 1.3%, ICM 0.9%, and absolute risk reduction was similar (0.4%). The most accurate cut-off of LVESV reduction that predicted endpoint freedom was 17.1% in NIDCM and 13.2% in ICM. CONCLUSIONS: ICM patients achieve less reverse remodelling than NIDCM, but the prognostic gain in terms of survival time is the same for every single percentage of reverse remodelling that does occur. The assessment and expected magnitude of reverse remodelling should take this effect of heart failure aetiology into account

Association between heart failure aetiology and magnitude of echocardiographic remodelling and outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS: Echocardiographic response after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is often lesser in ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) than non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) patients. We assessed the association of heart failure aetiology on the amount of reverse remodelling and outcome of CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-eight CRT patients were retrospectively included. Reverse remodelling and endpoint occurrence (all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation) was assessed. Two response definitions [≥15% reduction left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) and ≥5% improvement left ventricular ejection fraction] and the most accurate cut-off for the amount of reverse remodelling that predicted endpoint freedom were assessed. Mean follow-up was 3.8 ± 2.4 years. ICM was present in 47%. ICM patients who were older (69 ± 7 vs. 63 ± 11), more often men (83% vs. 58%), exhibited less LVESV reduction (13 ± 31% vs. 23 ± 32%) and less left ventricular ejection fraction improvement (5 ± 11% vs. 10 ± 12%) than NIDCM patients (all P < 0.001). Nevertheless, every 1% LVESV reduction was associated with a relative reduction in endpoint occurrence: NIDCM 1.3%, ICM 0.9%, and absolute risk reduction was similar (0.4%). The most accurate cut-off of LVESV reduction that predicted endpoint freedom was 17.1% in NIDCM and 13.2% in ICM. CONCLUSIONS: ICM patients achieve less reverse remodelling than NIDCM, but the prognostic gain in terms of survival time is the same for every single percentage of reverse remodelling that does occur. The assessment and expected magnitude of reverse remodelling should take this effect of heart failure aetiology into account

Evaluating Electrocardiography-Based Identification of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Responders Beyond Current Left Bundle Branch Block Definitions

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the association of 4 left bundle branch block (LBBB) definitions and their individual ECG characteristics with clinical outcome. Furthermore, it aimed to combine relevant outcome-associated electrocardiographic (ECG) characteristics into a novel outcome-based definition. Background: LBBB morphology is associated with positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. However, there are multiple LBBB definitions. Associations with outcomes may differ between definitions and depend on varying contributions of the individual ECG characteristics that these LBBB definitions are composed of. Methods: A retrospective multicenter study was conducted in 1,492 cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. Patients were classified as LBBB or non-LBBB according to definitions provided by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, and according to Strauss et al., the primary endpoint was left ventricular assist device implantation, cardiac transplantation, and all-cause mortality. Results: LBBB classification differed significantly between the 4 definitions (kappa coefficients ranging from 0.09 to 0.92). The American Heart Association definition correlated the least (0.09 to 0.12) with the other definitions. Only 13.8% of patients were classified as LBBB by all definitions. During a follow-up period of 3.4 ± 2.4 years, 472 (32%) patients experienced the primary endpoint. For each LBBB definition survival analysis showed a significant association of LBBB with outcome, with relative risk reduction ranging from 39% to 43%. Each LBBB definition included characteristics that were not associated with outcome. Combining outcome-associated ECG characteristics into a novel prediction model did not significantly improve diagnostic performance (relative risk reduction 43%). Conclusions: The classification of LBBB is highly dependent on the LBBB definition used. However, each LBBB definition provides a comparable difference in risk of adverse clinical events between LBBB and non-LBBB patients. Combining individual outcome-associated ECG-characteristics into a novel prediction model does not improve association with outcome

Comparison of the relation of the ESC 2021 and ESC 2013 definitions of left bundle branch block with clinical and echocardiographic outcome in cardiac resynchronization therapy

Introduction: We aimed to investigate the impact of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline changes in left bundle branch block (LBBB) definition on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patient selection and outcomes. Methods: The MUG (Maastricht, Utrecht, Groningen) registry, consisting of consecutive patients implanted with a CRT device between 2001 and 2015 was studied. For this study, patients with baseline sinus rhythm and QRS duration ≥ 130ms were eligible. Patients were classified according to ESC 2013 and 2021 guideline LBBB definitions and QRS duration. Endpoints were heart transplantation, LVAD implantation or mortality (HTx/LVAD/mortality) and echocardiographic response (LVESV reduction ≥15%). Results: The analyses included 1.202, typical CRT patients. The ESC 2021 definition resulted in considerably less LBBB diagnoses compared to the 2013 definition (31.6% vs. 80.9%, respectively). Applying the 2013 definition resulted in significant separation of the Kaplan–Meier curves of HTx/LVAD/mortality (p <.0001). A significantly higher echocardiographic response rate was found in the LBBB compared to the non-LBBB group using the 2013 definition. These differences in HTx/LVAD/mortality and echocardiographic response were not found when applying the 2021 definition. Conclusion: The ESC 2021 LBBB definition leads to a considerably lower percentage of patients with baseline LBBB then the ESC 2013 definition. This does not lead to better differentiation of CRT responders, nor does this lead to a stronger association with clinical outcomes after CRT. In fact, stratification according to the 2021 definition is not associated with a difference in clinical or echocardiographic outcome, implying that the guideline changes may negatively influence CRT implantation practice with a weakened recommendation in patients that will benefit from CRT