Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Cardiac Resynchronisation therapy.pptx

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 30 Ad

More Related Content

Similar to Cardiac Resynchronisation therapy.pptx (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Cardiac Resynchronisation therapy.pptx

  1. 1. Cardiac Resynchronisation therapy Asfandiar Ali Resident Adult Cardiology Moderator: Yawer Saeed May 2022 Section of Cardiology Don’t stop until you are proud
  2. 2. DISCLOSURE • NONE
  3. 3. SAYNO TO DISSYNCHRONY, BE THATIN HEARTOR IN LIFE
  4. 4. INTRODUCTION IMPORTANT CLINICAL STUDIES OF PATIENTS WITH HF AND WIDE QRS COMPLEX MECHANICAL BENEFITS OF CRT REDUCING THE RATE OF CRT NONRESPONSE DETAILS OF PROCEDURE MARKERS OF DYSSYNCHRONY CRT CURRENT CONTROVERSY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS CURRENT ACC/AHA/HRS GUIDELINES
  5. 5. INTRODUCTION • Systolic heart failure is a major problem globally & While pharmacologic therapy has drastically improved outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure, hospitalizations from systolic heart failure continue to increase and remain a major cost burden. • Ventricular dyssynchrony arises because of delayed ventricular activation and contraction of the ventricle, thereby disturbing the normally coordinated heartbeat • In a dyssynchronously beating ventricle, one or more ventricular segments contract out of time with the rest of the ventricle, which reduces the heart’s pumping efficiency by wasting energy and worsening valvular regurgitation • Approximately one third of patients with systolic heart failure (HF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV symptoms suffer from dyssynchronous ventricular contraction4 • The aim of CRT is to restore mechanical synchrony by electrically activating the heart in a synchronized manner • There is strong evidence from randomized controlled trials showing that CRT combined with optimal medical therapy improves HF symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and quality of life (QOL), while decreasing heart failure hospitalizations and reducing mortality
  6. 6. MARKERS OF DYSSYNCHRONY • The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) guidelines for the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy use a QRS duration of more than 120 ms on the 12-lead electrocardiogram as a marker of ventricular dyssynchrony • As the QRS complex represents ventricular depolarization, it follows that a wide QRS denotes prolonged ventricular conduction time and nonsimultaneous activation of the ventricular walls.
  7. 7. • Cardiac resynchronization therapy is typically accomplished by adding a left ventricular pacing lead to a standard pacemaker or defibrillator system, which typically includes right atrial and right ventricular leads • After cannulation of the coronary sinus, retrograde venography is performed to identify coronary sinus anatomy. The pacing lead is then advanced into the target vein, ideally in the area of the left ventricle with the greatest delay in contraction • Optimal lead placement is dependent on the presence of an acceptable target vein, adequate pacing capture threshold, lack of stimulation of the phrenic nerve and/or diaphragm, and lead stability
  8. 8. MECHANICAL BENEFITS OF CRT 1. cardiac resynchronization therapy has been shown to decrease all 3 types of dyssynchrony 2. Intraventricular dyssynchrony within the left ventricle, which is often most prominent between the early-activated interventricular septum and late activated posterolateral wall 3. Interventricular (V-V) dyssynchrony between the left and right ventricles, which is most often the result of delayed activation of the left ventricle due to left bundle branch block 4. Atrioventricular (A-V) dyssynchrony secondary to prolonged AV nodal conduction coupled with His- Purkinje system dysfunction. 5. Another benefit of pacing from the left ventricular lateral wall is early activation of the anterolateral papillary muscle, which can decrease the severity of mitral regurgitation. 6. Mitral regurgitation also can be reduced over time because of reverse remodeling induced by CRT, which reduces left ventricular cavity size, thus reducing mitral annular diameter and allowing mitral leaflet coaptation
  9. 9. MUSTIC TRIAL CARE HF TRIAL COMPANION TRIAL REVERSE TRIAL MIRACLE ICD TRIAL MIRACLE TRIAL TRIALS ON CRT MADIT-CRT TRIAL RETHINQ TRIAL
  10. 10. MULTISITE STIMULATION IN CARDIOMYOPATHY TRIAL (MUSTIC TRIAL) STUDY POPULATION • EF less than 35% • Sinus rhythm • NYHA III-IV symptoms • Left ventricular end diastolic volume more than 60mm • QRS duration > 150ms Primary End points • Exercise tolerance • Quality of life improvement • Peak oxygen consumption ( during Active biventricular pacing for 3 months and backup RV only pacing for another 3 months) • REPORTED IN 2001 • ONE OF THE FIRST TRIAL DEMONSTRATING SIGNIFACANT CLINAICAL IMPROVEMENT WITH CRT • SINGLE BLINDED CROSS OVER STUDY RESULTS Statistically significant improvement in • 6 minutes walking distance • Improved quality of life • Improved oxygen consumption
  11. 11. MULTICENTER INSYNC RANDOMIZAED CLINICAL EVALUATION (MIRACLE TRIAL) STUDY POPULATION • EF less than 35% • Sinus rhythm • NYHA III-IV symptoms • Left ventricular end diastolic volume more than 60 mm • QRS duration > 130 ms Primary End points 1. Deaths or hospitalization secondary to heart failure 2. 6 minutes waking distance 3. Improvement in NYHA function class 4. Quality of life • Followed soon after the MUSTIC trial • Sample size 453 • Randomization into CRT vs Control groups • Follow up time 6 months RESULTS Statistically significant improvement in • Deaths or Hospitalization secondary to heart failure • Improvement in NYHA FC • 6 minutes walking distance • Improved quality of life • Improved oxygen consumption
  12. 12. Results of MIRACLE TRIAL
  13. 13. MULTICENTER INSYNC RANDOMIZAED CLINICAL EVALUATION ICD (MIRACLE ICD TRIAL) STUDY POPULATION • EF less than 35% • Sinus rhythm • NYHA III-IV symptoms • Left ventricular end diastolic volume more than 60 mm • QRS duration > 130 ms Primary End points 1. 6 minutes waking distance 2. Improvement in NYHA function class 3. Quality of life 4. Oxygen consumption • First Randomized trial that evaluated the effectiveness of CRT with an ICD • Sample size 369 • Follow up duration 6 months • Randomization to CRT-ICD on and CRT-ICD off groups RESULTS Statistically significant improvement in • Improvement in NYHA FC • 6 minutes walking distance • Improved quality of life • Improved oxygen consumption The MIRACLE ICD trial also demonstrated that • CRT does not interfere with the function of ICD • The time required for the device to detect first VFIB did not differ between the two groups • CRT did not have a significant effect on the percentage of patients who suffered ventricular tachyarrhythmia's or inappropriate device shocks.
  14. 14. COMPANION TRIAL STUDY POPULATION • EF less than 35% • Sinus rhythm • NYHA III-IV symptoms • QRS duration > 120 ms Primary End points • Composite end point of time to hospitalization or deaths from any cause Secondary end points • All cause Mortality • First Randomized trial that was powered to evaluate the Effect of CRT on Mortality • Sample size 1520 • Randomization into 3 treatment arms 1. Optimal medical therapy alone (OMT) 2. OMT plus CRT with pacing only (CRT-P) 3. OMT plus CRT with pacemaker/defibrillator (CRT-D) • Patient were assigned in a 1:2:2 fashion • Follow up period 1 year RESULTS • The CRT-D group, but not the CRT-P group, had a significant reduction in overall mortality as compared to the group receiving OMT alone • The CRT-P group barely missed statistical significance for overall mortality (P = 0.059)
  15. 15. Results of COMPANION TRIAL Kaplan-Meier curve showing overall survival in the cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) group, CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) group, and control group in the COMPANION trial. The CRT-D cohort showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, while the CRT-P cohort barely missed statistical significance for this end point.
  16. 16. CARE-HEART FAILURE TRIAL (CARE-HF TRIAL) STUDY POPULATION • EF equal or less than 35% • Sinus rhythm • NYHA III-IV symptoms • QRS duration > 120 ms Primary End points • composite of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event Secondary End points • all-cause mortality. • Followed COMAPANION trial in 2005 • Sample size 813 • Randomization in OMT group CRT-P group • OMT group 404 • CRT-P group 409 • Of note only 8% of people were having QRS between 120-150, rest were having QRS> 150 RESULTS • Compared to OMT alone, CRT-P was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and hospitalization for major cardiovascular events at 29 months • CARE-HF was the first trial to show definitively that CRT-P, even in the absence of ICD therapy, had a mortality benefit
  17. 17. Combined end point of mortality and/or heart failure hospitalization all-cause mortality Results of CARE-HF trial
  18. 18. CURRENT ACC/AHA/HRS GUIDELINES Class I (‘‘Indicated’’) • Treatment with CRT (with or without an ICD) is indicated for patients with sinus rhythm, LVEF of 35% or less, QRSd of 120 ms or more, and NYHA class III or ambulatory class IV HF symptoms despite optimal medical therapy Class IIa (‘‘Reasonable’’) • Treatment with CRT (with or without an ICD) is considered reasonable for patients with sinus rhythm, LVEF of 35% or less, and NYHA class III or ambulatory class IV HF symptoms despite optimal medical therapy, who have frequent dependence on ventricular pacing Class IIa (‘‘Reasonable’’) • Treatment with CRT (with or without an ICD) is considered reasonable for patients in atrial fibrillation (AF), LVEF of 35% or less, QRSd of 120 ms or more, and NYHA class III or ambulatory class IV HF symptoms despite optimal medical therapy Class IIb (‘‘May Be Considered’’) • Treatment with CRT may be considered for patients with sinus rhythm, LVEF of 35% or less, and NYHA class I or class II HF symptoms, who are undergoing implantation of a permanent pacemaker/ICD with anticipated frequent ventricular pacing
  19. 19. Class III (Not Indicated) • Treatment with CRT is not indicated for asymptomatic patients with reduced LVEF in the absence of other indications for pacing, or for those whose functional status and life expectancy are limited predominantly by chronic noncardiac conditions
  20. 20. REDUCINGTHE RATE OF CRT NONRESPONSE • Despite randomized controlled trials showing significant average improvements in morbidity and mortality as a result of CRT, the number of patients who do not improve symptomatically remains high at 30%. • for biventricular pacing to have any effect, pacing must occur. If the patient’s own heart rate exceeds the device’s programmed lower rate limit, pacing is inhibited and the potential benefits of resynchronization are missed completely • Biventricular pacing appears to be of greatest benefit when the ventricle is paced frequently (as close to 100% as possible) • The presence of ischemic cardiomyopathy (rather than nonischemic cardiomyopathy) has been shown to be an independent predictor for CRT nonresponse. • A large scar burden with nonviable myocardium in the area of pacing, especially with a severely enlarged and remodeled ventricle, can cause high capture thresholds and can influence mechanical function.
  21. 21. CURRENT CONTROVERSY & FUTURE DIRECTIONS Patients with AF Patients with a relatively narrow QRSd (120 ms) Patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) Patients with NYHA class I and II HF (ie, asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic)
  22. 22. Do patients with heart failure who have AF respond as well to CRT as do patients in sinus rhythm? • A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies( totaling 1164 patients) comparing the impact of CRT on patients in AF versus those in sinus rhythm showed similar improvement in LVEF between the 2 groups. • However, the benefit in functional outcome (measured by NYHA functional class, 6- minute walking distance, for patients with AF was less than that for patients in sinus rhythm. • To achieve a high percentage of biventricularly paced beats in patients with AF, often it is necessary to slow conduction through the AV node ( by the use of Beta blocker/ calcium channel blocker/ digoxin or catheter ablation of AV node).
  23. 23. CRT & NARROW QRS (<120MS) THE RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY IN NARROW QRS (RETHINQ TRIAL) • First Randomized control trial that demonstrated the effect of CRT in patients with Narrow QRS. STUDY POPULATION • EF 35% or Less • NYHA class III • QRS < 120 • Evidence of M • mechanical dyssynchrony on ECHO PRIMARY END POINT • Peak O2 consumption at 6 months • Improvement in NYHA class • Quality of Life RESULTS • The study failed to demonstrate an improvement in the primary end points
  24. 24. CRT & NARROW QRS (<120MS) • The RethinQ trial showed that CRT is not beneficial in patients with systolic heart failure and QRSd of less than 120 ms • Similar Trial ECHOCRT demonstrated the same Results So in conclusion CRT is not Indicated In Patient with a Narrow QRS i-e QRS duration Less than 120
  25. 25. CRT and NYHA class I & II Does CRT cause reverse remodeling in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, and thereby slow progression of disease? Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction (REVERSE) trial Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial
  26. 26. CRT & NYHA class I & II Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction (REVERSE) Trial • Design parallel, blinded, Randomized • Sample size 610 • NYHA Class I 18% • NYHA class II 82% • Randomization in CRT-ON & CRT-OFF • Follow up 5 years STUDY POPULATION • LV dysfunction (≤40%) • Prolonged QRS duration (≥120 ms) • NYHA class I-II • Optimal medical therapy • No indication for permanent pacing PRIMARY END POINTS • composite of all-cause mortality • heart failure hospitalization • progression to a higher HF class • worsening global assessment score. RESULTS • The study did show a statistically significant reduction in the composite end point (34% worsening in CRT-off versus 19% in CRT-on, P50.01)
  27. 27. CRT & NYHA class I & II MADIT-CRT TRIAL • Design parallel, blinded, Randomized • Sample size 1820 • ICM NYHA Class I 14% class II 40% • NICM NYHA class II 45% • Randomization into 3:2 into CRT-D or ICD alone groups • Follow up 7 years STUDY POPULATION • LV dysfunction (≤30%) • Prolonged QRS duration (≥120 ms) • ICM NYHA class I-II • NICM NYHA class II • Optimal medical therapy • Normal sinus rhythm PRIMARY END POINTS • composite of all-cause mortality • heart failure hospitalization RESULTS • there was a 29% reduction in this combined end point in the CRT-D group compared to the group with ICD alone (P= 0.003) • Reduction in primary end point was driven primarily by 41% reduction in Heart failure events alone • No significant difference in mortality
  28. 28. • Both REVERSE and MADIT-CRT trials concluded that CRT may indeed be useful in slowing the progression of mildly symptomatic systolic HF • Therefore Patient with asymptomatic or Mild heart failure (NYHA class I & II) with QRS equal or more than 120ms benefits from Cardiac resynchronization therapy.
  29. 29. CRT and RBBB How the addition of a left ventricular lead could improve synchrony in patients whose right ventricular activation is delayed? • RBBB can mask underlying concomitant delay in the left bundle branch • The benefit of CRT for patients with RBBB is an area of active investigation, and further analysis of a larger cohort of patients is needed • Currently, the ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines do not discriminate with regard to specific QRS morphology in their CRT recommendations

Editor's Notes

  • greatest hemodynamic benefit of biventricular pacing occurs when the ventricles are paced as close to 100% of the time as possible
  • for patients with NYHA class III or IV HF and a wide QRS, CRT also has been shown to cause reverse remodeling, and this is thought to be one reason for the observed decrease in mortality seen in CRT trials.

×