Impact of pacing configuration and right ventricular lead location on dynamic atrioventricular delay optimization

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Abbott Introduction Automatic adjustment of atrioventricular delay (AVD) with SyncAV has been shown to improve electrical synchronization. However, the effect of pacing configuration and right ventricular (RV) lead location on SyncAV programming is unknown. Purpose Evaluate the effect of pacing configuration and lead location on SyncAV optimization during biventricular (BiV) and LV-only pacing, with and without MultiPoint Pacing (MPP). Methods Patients with LBBB and QRS duration (QRSd) ≥ 150 ms scheduled for CRT-P/D device implantation with quadripolar LV lead were enrolled in this prospective study. RV lead location was classified at implant by the operator via fluoroscopy. QRSd was measured post-implant from 12-lead surface ECG by blinded experts during the following pacing modes: intrinsic conduction, BiV (BiV = RV + LV1), MPP (MPP = RV + LV1 + LV2), LV-only single-site (LVSS = LV1 only), and LV-only MPP (LVMPP = LV1 + LV2). For each mode, SyncAV was enabled (e.g. BiV + SyncAV) with the patient-tailored SyncAV offset that minimized QRSd. For BiV and LVSS, LV1 was the latest activating LV cathode; for MPP and LVMPP, LV1 + LV2 were the two LV cathodes with the widest possible separation (≥30mm). All modes used minimal RV-LV and LV1-LV2 delays. Results Fifty-three patients (68% male, 36% ischemic, 26% ejection fraction, 169 ms intrinsic QRSd) completed device implant and QRSd assessment. RV leads were implanted in either the septum (48%) or apex (52%), according to implanting physician preference. Relative to intrinsic conduction, BiV + SyncAV and MPP + SyncAV reduced QRSd by 23% and 27%, respectively (p < 0.01). LVSS + SyncAV reduced QRSd by 22% (p < 0.01 vs BiV + SyncAV), and LVMPP + SyncAV reduced QRSd by 25% (p < 0.05 vs MPP + SyncAV). RV apex or septum lead location did not have a significant impact on QRS reduction for each pacing configuration. As a percent of PR interval, optimal SyncAV offsets were similar for BiV + SyncAV and MPP + SyncAV (16% vs 13%, p = 0.05), and for LVSS + SyncAV and LVMPP + SyncAV (18% vs 21%, p = 0.46), but were significantly higher for LV-only settings vs. corresponding BiV/MPP settings (p < 0.05 for both pairs). For BiV + SyncAV, apical vs septal RV leads required greater SyncAV offsets (22% vs 11%, p < 0.05). SyncAV offsets also tended to be higher in apical vs septal RV leads for MPP (21% vs 11%), LVSS (20% vs 15%), and LVMPP (25% vs 16%), but without statistical significance. Conclusion SyncAV improves acute electrical synchronization in CRT patients with LBBB, particularly with patient-specific SyncAV programming. Pacing configuration (RV + LV or LV only, with or without MPP) and RV lead location (apex or septum) could potentially influence optimal SyncAV programming. Abstract Figure.

Atrioventricular shortening is the dominant mechanism of benefit of biventricular pacing in left bundle branch block

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): British Heart Foundation Background Cardiac resynchronization therapy delivered via biventricular pacing is thought to improve haemodynamic function through resynchronization of ventricular activation. Biventricular pacing also improves ventricular filling by shortening atrioventricular delay. Quantifying the relative contributions of these two mechanisms requires atrioventricular delay to be altered while left bundle branch block is preserved. This occurs when the His bundle is paced at an output below the left bundle branch block correction threshold. Purpose We performed His bundle pacing with preservation of left bundle branch block to measure the relative contributions of atrioventricular delay shortening and ventricular resynchronisation to the overall haemodynamic benefit of biventricular pacing. Methods Patients with left bundle branch block referred for conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy with biventricular pacing were recruited. Using a high precision, beat-by-beat systolic blood pressure assessment protocol, we assessed the haemodynamic effects of biventricular pacing and temporary His bundle pacing with left bundle branch block preservation at a full range of atrioventricular delays. We used non-invasive epicardial mapping (ECGI) to assess left ventricular activation time. Left bundle branch block preservation was defined as <20ms shortening of the interval between intrinsic His potential to QRS offset to the interval from stimulation to QRS offset in His bundle pacing. Results In 19 patients, His bundle pacing with preservation of left bundle branch block produced a peak systolic blood pressure improvement of 5.1mmHg (95% confidence interval: 2.2 to 8.0, p = 0.0013) compared to AAI pacing. In 16 of these patients, biventricular pacing was performed and produced a peak systolic blood pressure improvement of 7.1mmHg (3.8 to 10.4, p < 0.001) compared to AAI pacing. The mean within-patient improvement in systolic blood pressure from His bundle pacing with preservation of left bundle branch block to biventricular pacing was 2.6mmHg (-0.4 to 5.7, p = 0.053, n = 16). The mean improvement in systolic blood pressure with left bundle branch block-preserved His bundle pacing was 63% of the mean improvement with biventricular pacing. Change in left ventricular activation time from intrinsic rhythm to 12-lead-ECG-defined left bundle branch block preservation was 0.1ms (-6.4 to 6.7, n = 19). Conclusion Biventricular pacing in left bundle branch block improves haemodynamic function through ventricular resynchronization and shortening of atrioventricular delay. The majority of benefit appears to be produced by atrioventricular delay shortening. When left bundle branch block is not corrected, His bundle pacing may still produce considerable haemodynamic improvement through this mechanism. Abstract Figure.

43Dynamic atrioventricular delay achieves superior electrical synchrony when pacing both ventricles rather than left ventricle alone

Funding Acknowledgements Abbott Introduction Automatic adjustment of atrioventricular delay (AVD) with SyncAV has been shown to improve electrical synchronization when pacing one or two sites in the left ventricle together with the right ventricle. However, it is unknown if the same benefit can be gained by using SyncAV while pacing only the left ventricle without right ventricular pacing. Purpose Evaluate the acute improvement in electrical synchrony provided by SyncAV with and without MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) during biventricular (BiV) and LV only pacing. Methods Patients with LBBB and QRS duration (QRSd) ≥ 150 ms scheduled for CRT-P/D device implantation with quadripolar LV lead were enrolled in this prospective study. QRSd was measured post-implant from 12-lead surface electrograms by blinded experts during the following pacing configurations: intrinsic conduction, conventional BiV (BiV = RV + LV1), MPP (MPP = RV + LV1 + LV2), LV-only single-site (LVSS = LV1 only), and LV-only MPP (LVMPP = LV1 + LV2). For each pacing mode, SyncAV was enabled (e.g. BiV + SyncAV) with the patient-tailored SyncAV offset that minimized QRSd. As an additional reference, QRSd during BiV was also measured using the nominal static AVD (paced/sensed AVD = 140/110 ms). BiV and LVSS pacing used the latest activating LV cathode, whereas MPP and LVMPP used the two LV cathodes with the widest possible separation (>30mm). All configurations used the minimum programmable RV-LV and LV1-LV2 delays. Results Thirty-five patients (78% male, 33% ischemic, 26% ejection fraction, 165 ms intrinsic QRSd) completed device implant and QRSd assessment. Relative to intrinsic conduction, BiV with nominal AVD reduced the QRSd by 17.5% (p < 0.001 vs intrinsic). Enabling SyncAV with a patient-optimized offset significantly improved QRSd reduction. BiV + SyncAV reduced QRSd by 25.2% (p < 0.001 vs. BiV). The greatest QRSd reduction of 28.9% was achieved by MPP + SyncAV (p < 0.01 vs. BiV + SyncAV). Single- and multi-site LV-only pacing reduced QRSd significantly less than corresponding biventricular modes. LVSS + SyncAV reduced QRSd by 22.5% (p < 0.05 vs. BiV + SyncAV), and LVMPP + SyncAV reduced QRSd by 24.3% (p < 0.05 vs. MPP + SyncAV). As a percent of PR interval, optimal SyncAV offsets were similar for BiV + SyncAV (median: 13%, mean: 17%) vs. MPP + SyncAV (median: 13%, mean 16%, p = 0.35 vs. BiV + SyncAV), and similar for LVSS + SyncAV (median: 20%, mean: 28%) and LVMPP + SyncAV (median: 23%, mean: 26%, p = 0.35 vs. LVSS + SyncAV), but were significantly higher for LV-only settings vs. corresponding BiV/MPP settings (p < 0.01 for both pairs). Conclusion: Greater improvement in electrical synchrony using SyncAV was observed when right ventricular pacing was included with left ventricular pacing. Additional benefit was gained by the addition of a second left ventricular pacing site with MPP in combination with SyncAV in both biventricular and LV only pacing modes. Abstract Figure.