Heart Rhythm O2 (Jun 2020)

Evaluating multisite pacing strategies in cardiac resynchronization therapy in the preclinical settingKey Findings

  • Luuk I.B. Heckman, MD,
  • Marion Kuiper, BSc,
  • Frederic Anselme, MD, PhD,
  • Filippo Ziglio, MSc,
  • Nicolas Shan, MSc,
  • Markus Jung, MSc,
  • Stef Zeemering, PhD,
  • Kevin Vernooy, MD, PhD,
  • Frits W. Prinzen, PhD

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 1, no. 2
pp. 111 – 119

Abstract

Read online

Background: Multisite pacing strategies that improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have been proposed. Current available options are pacing 2 electrodes in a multipolar lead in a single vein (multipoint pacing [MPP]) and pacing using 2 leads in separate veins (multizone pacing [MZP]). Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare in a systematic manner the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) and electrophysiological effects of MPP and MZP and compare them with conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). Methods: Hemodynamic and electrophysiological effects were evaluated in a porcine model of acute left bundle branch block (LBBB) (n = 8). AHR was assessed as LVdP/dtmax. Activation times were measured using >100 electrodes around the epicardium, measuring total activation time (TAT) and left ventricular activation time (LVAT). Results: Compared to LBBB, BiVP, MZP, and MPP reduced TAT by 26% ± 10%, 32% ± 13%, and 32% ± 14%, respectively (P = NS between modes) and LVAT by 4% ± 5%, 11% ± 5%, and 12% ± 5%, respectively (P 5 cm vs <2.2 cm) were used. Conclusion: In this animal model of acute LBBB, MPP and MZP create similar degrees of electrical resynchronization and hemodynamic effect, which are larger if interelectrode distance is large. MPP and MZP increase the benefit of CRT only if the left ventricular lead used for BiVP provides poor response.

Keywords