Optimized single‐point left ventricular pacing leads to improved resynchronization compared with multipoint pacing. Issue 3 (16th February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: San Antonio, Rodolfo; Guasch, Eduard; González‐Ascaso, Ana; Jiménez‐Arjona, Rafael; Climent, Andreu M.; Pujol‐López, Margarida; Doltra, Adelina; Alarcón, Francisco; Garre, Paz; Liberos, Alejandro; Trotta, Omar; Quinto, Levio; Borràs, Roger; Arbelo, Elena; Roca‐Luque, Ivo; Atienza, Felipe; Brugada, Josep; Fernández‐Avilés, Francisco; Guillem, María S.; Sitges, Marta; Tolosana, Jose María; Mont, Lluís
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 44:Issue 3(2021)
• Page Start: 519
• Page End: 527
• Publication Date: 2021-02-16
• Subjects: battery longevity -- cardiac resynchronization therapy -- electrocardiographic imaging -- fusion‐optimized intervals -- multipoint pacing; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14185
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Multipoint pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) activates the left ventricle from two locations, thereby shortening the QRS duration and enabling better resynchronization; however, compared with conventional CRT, MPP reduces battery longevity. On the other hand, electrocardiogram‐based optimization using the fusion‐optimized intervals (FOI) method achieves more significant reverse remodeling than nominal CRT programming. Our study aimed to determine whether MPP could attain better resynchronization than single‐point pacing (SPP) optimized by FOI. Methods: This prospective study included 32 consecutive patients who successfully received CRT devices with MPP capabilities. After implantation, the QRS duration was measured during intrinsic rhythm and with three pacing configurations: MPP, SPP‐FOI, and MPP‐FOI. In 14 patients, biventricular activation times (by electrocardiographic imaging, ECGI) were obtained during intrinsic rhythm and for each pacing configuration to validate the findings. Device battery longevity was estimated at the 45‐day follow‐up. Results: The SPP‐FOI method achieved greater QRS shortening than MPP (‐56 ± 16 vs. ‐42 ± 17 ms, p < .001). Adding MPP to the best FOI programming did not result in further shortening (MPP‐FOI: ‐58 ± 14 ms, p = .69). Although biventricular activation times did not differ significantly among the three pacing configurations, only the two FOI configurations achieved significant shortening compared with intrinsic rhythm. The estimated battery longevity was longer with SPP than with MPP (8.1 ± 2.3 vs. 6.3 ± 2.0 years, p = .03). Conclusions: SPP optimized by FOI resulted in better resynchronization and longer battery duration than MPP.