A Fortuitous Syncope. The pitfalls of Integrated Bipolar Defibrillator Leads

Myopotential oversensing in implantable defibrillators causing inhibition of pacing and inappropriate therapies is well described. Current literature is dominated by reports of diaphragmatic muscle as the source of such far-field oversensing. Those reporting pectoral muscle sources were invariably due to unipolar sensing circuits, incorrect DF-1 connections or inappropriate programming. We report an interesting case of pectoral muscle myopotential oversensing causing inhibition of bradycardia pacing leading to presyncope and syncope

A systematic approach to designing reliable VV optimization methodology: Assessment of internal validity of echocardiographic, electrocardiographic and haemodynamic optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy

AbstractBackgroundIn atrial fibrillation (AF), VV optimization of biventricular pacemakers can be examined in isolation. We used this approach to evaluate internal validity of three VV optimization methods by three criteria.Methods and resultsTwenty patients (16 men, age 75±7) in AF were optimized, at two paced heart rates, by LVOT VTI (flow), non-invasive arterial pressure, and ECG (minimizing QRS duration). Each optimization method was evaluated for: singularity (unique peak of function), reproducibility of optimum, and biological plausibility of the distribution of optima.The reproducibility (standard deviation of the difference, SDD) of the optimal VV delay was 10ms for pressure, versus 8ms (p=ns) for QRS and 34ms (p<0.01) for flow.Singularity of optimum was 85% for pressure, 63% for ECG and 45% for flow (Chi2=10.9, p<0.005).The distribution of pressure optima was biologically plausible, with 80% LV pre-excited (p=0.007). The distributions of ECG (55% LV pre-excitation) and flow (45% LV pre-excitation) optima were no different to random (p=ns).The pressure-derived optimal VV delay is unaffected by the paced rate: SDD between slow and fast heart rate is 9ms, no different from the reproducibility SDD at both heart rates.ConclusionsUsing non-invasive arterial pressure, VV delay optimization by parabolic fitting is achievable with good precision, satisfying all 3 criteria of internal validity. VV optimum is unaffected by heart rate. Neither QRS minimization nor LVOT VTI satisfy all validity criteria, and therefore seem weaker candidate modalities for VV optimization. AF, unlinking interventricular from atrioventricular delay, uniquely exposes resynchronization concepts to experimental scrutiny

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: mechanisms of action and scope for further improvement in cardiac function.

Aims: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may exert its beneficial haemodynamic effect by improving ventricular synchrony and improving atrioventricular (AV) timing. The aim of this study was to establish the relative importance of the mechanisms through which CRT improves cardiac function and explore the potential for additional improvements with improved ventricular resynchronization. Methods and Results: We performed simulations using the CircAdapt haemodynamic model and performed haemodynamic measurements while adjusting AV delay, at low and high heart rates, in 87 patients with CRT devices. We assessed QRS duration, presence of fusion, and haemodynamic response. The simulations suggest that intrinsic PR interval and the magnitude of reduction in ventricular activation determine the relative importance of the mechanisms of benefit. For example, if PR interval is 201 ms and LV activation time is reduced by 25 ms (typical for current CRT methods), then AV delay optimization is responsible for 69% of overall improvement. Reducing LV activation time by an additional 25 ms produced an additional 2.6 mmHg increase in blood pressure (30% of effect size observed with current CRT). In the clinical population, ventricular fusion significantly shortened QRS duration (Δ-27 ± 23 ms, P < 0.001) and improved systolic blood pressure (mean 2.5 mmHg increase). Ventricular fusion was present in 69% of patients, yet in 40% of patients with fusion, shortening AV delay (to a delay where fusion was not present) produced the optimal haemodynamic response. Conclusions: Improving LV preloading by shortening AV delay is an important mechanism through which cardiac function is improved with CRT. There is substantial scope for further improvement if methods for delivering more efficient ventricular resynchronization can be developed. Clinical Trial Registration: Our clinical data were obtained from a subpopulation of the British Randomised Controlled Trial of AV and VV Optimisation (BRAVO), which is a registered clinical trial with unique identifier: NCT01258829, https://clinicaltrials.gov

Multicenter Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial Comparing Hemodynamic Optimization Against Echocardiographic Optimization of AV and VV Delay of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy:The BRAVO Trial

Objectives: BRAVO (British Randomized Controlled Trial of AV and VV Optimization) is a multicenter, randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial comparing echocardiographic optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular delay with a noninvasive blood pressure method. Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy including AV delay optimization confers clinical benefit, but the optimization requires time and expertise to perform. Methods: This study randomized patients to echocardiographic optimization or hemodynamic optimization using multiple-replicate beat-by-beat noninvasive blood pressure at baseline; after 6 months, participants were crossed over to the other optimization arm of the trial. The primary outcome was exercise capacity, quantified as peak exercise oxygen uptake. Secondary outcome measures were echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) remodeling, quality-of-life scores, and N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide. Results: A total of 401 patients were enrolled, the median age was 69 years, 78% of patients were men, and the New York Heart Association functional class was II in 84% and III in 16%. The primary endpoint, peak oxygen uptake, met the criterion for noninferiority (pnoninferiority = 0.0001), with no significant difference between the hemodynamically optimized arm and echocardiographically optimized arm of the trial (mean difference 0.1 ml/kg/min). Secondary endpoints for noninferiority were also met for symptoms (mean difference in Minnesota score 1; pnoninferiority = 0.002) and hormonal changes (mean change in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide -10 pg/ml; pnoninferiority = 0.002). There was no significant difference in LV size (mean change in LV systolic dimension 1 mm; pnoninferiority < 0.001; LV diastolic dimension 0 mm; pnoninferiority <0.001). In 30% of patients the AV delay identified as optimal was more than 20 ms from the nominal setting of 120 ms. Conclusions: Optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices by using noninvasive blood pressure is noninferior to echocardiographic optimization. Therefore, noninvasive hemodynamic optimization is an acceptable alternative that has the potential to be automated and thus more easily implemented. (British Randomized Controlled Trial of AV and VV Optimization [BRAVO]; NCT01258829

How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis

Objectives: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. Design: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. Setting: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. Participants: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. Main outcome measures: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. Results: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. Conclusions: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave