Informação da revista
Vol. 34. Núm. 9.
Páginas 511-513 (Setembro 2015)
Partilhar
Partilhar
Baixar PDF
Mais opções do artigo
Vol. 34. Núm. 9.
Páginas 511-513 (Setembro 2015)
Editorial
Open Access
What does device-based hemodynamic optimization bring to clinical practice in cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Qual a importância clínica da otimização automática baseada em sensor hemodinâmico na terapêutica de ressincronização cardíaca?
Visitas
6230
Mário Martins Oliveiraa,b
a Electrophysiology Laboratory, Santa Marta Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal
b Institute of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
Este item recebeu

Under a Creative Commons license
Informação do artigo
Texto Completo
Bibliografia
Baixar PDF
Estatísticas
Figuras (1)
Texto Completo

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an electrical device treatment that allows the heart to beat in a more coordinated and synchronized manner, thus improving the electrical dyssynchrony found in many patients with heart failure (HF) (Figure 1) and increasing left ventricular (LV) filling time and reducing mitral regurgitation and ventricular asynchrony.1 It is indicated in selected patients with severe LV dysfunction and a broad QRS complex, with significant benefits demonstrated in cardiac output and hemodynamic parameters, and is associated with reverse remodeling and improvements in functional capacity and quality of life, as well as reductions in clinical symptoms, hospitalization due to HF, and mortality.2,3 CRT can be achieved with a device designed only for pacing (CRT-P) or can be incorporated into a combination device with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D).

Figure 1.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy uses a pacemaker generator (with or without cardioverter-defibrillator function) and leads (arrows) to provide biventricular electric stimulation to synchronize cardiac contraction.

(0,14MB).

Unfortunately, despite appropriate selection criteria, a variable proportion of eligible patients, known as non-responders, fail to benefit from this treatment. A number of reasons for this failure have been postulated, and suboptimal atrioventricular (AV) intervals are considered to be a major factor in this complex problem.4 Suboptimal LV filling time or LV dyssynchrony persisting after CRT may reduce the benefits of this therapy. In a subset of patients with LV dysfunction there is a disturbance in coordination of atrial and ventricular activation causing AV dyssynchrony. Furthermore, there is a spectrum of ventricular conduction abnormalities varying from a proximal barrier to a more diffuse slowing of conduction. As a consequence, the LV is electrically activated throughout myocardial tissue, leading to mechanical interventricular and intraventricular dyssynchrony.5 CRT devices enable manipulation of AV and interventricular (VV) timings in order to maximize LV performance. Previous studies have shown that significant improvements in hemodynamic function can be obtained by optimizing device programming.4,6 However, AV delay optimization is often poorly performed in clinical CRT practice, and is frequently programmed empirically,7 for reasons of time, cost, and complexity. However, there are also several other questions regarding the systematic optimization of AV and VV intervals, particularly the best method to perform optimization, when and how often, and its impact on daily practice.

The incremental value of optimization over empirical device programming was evaluated in a meta-analysis of combined data on a total of 4356 patients with HF treated with CRT.8 According to this analysis, routine AV and/or VV delay optimization has a neutral effect on clinical or echocardiography outcomes, making it even more controversial to perform in all patients undergoing CRT. A recent large long-term follow-up study from Japan, presented during the American College of Cardiology 2014 Scientific Sessions, showed that AV interval optimization significantly improved survival in patients with CRT, whereas VV interval optimization showed no clinical benefit.9 According to the 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy, current literature does not support AV and VV optimization routinely in all patients receiving CRT.10 However, in non-responders and in those with ischemic heart disease or in need of atrial pacing, assessment of AV and VV delay may be recommended in order to correct suboptimal device settings.10

Theoretically, a system that continually adjusts AV and VV delays according to the patient's daily activities, hemodynamic variations, or medications would be an ideal option. Should programming settings be periodically reviewed? And what if an automatically effective algorithm could be incorporated into devices to improve CRT response?

At present, the automatic methods available for AV and VV interval optimization include those based on intracardiac electrogram (IEGM) measurements (QuickOpt™, SmartDelay™ and AdaptivCRT®) and the peak endocardial acceleration (SonR) sensor, a micro accelerometer built into the tip of the right atrial lead that detects cardiac muscle vibrations reflecting the first heart sound. This sensor provides a signal amplitude measurement that correlates with LV dP/dtmax (reflecting LV contractility). If the difference between the new area measured by the sensor compared to the previous week is ≥10% the new configuration settings for AV and/or VV will be applied. The SonR sensor is programmed to perform weekly measurements and automatic optimizations during rest and also under effort, if the patient's heart rate exceeds 90 bpm.

IEGM- and hemodynamic device-based algorithms are considered safe methodologies, with randomized clinical studies showing interesting data regarding their benefits in clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. The Freedom trial assessed the safety and efficacy of frequent CRT optimization (3, 6, 9, and 12 months) using the QuickOpt method.11 The study showed non-inferiority compared to standard of care (no optimization or a single echo-based optimization within the first four weeks after implant) regarding clinical outcome during the first year after CRT. In the Smart AV trial, the SmartDelay group results, including NYHA class, quality of life and echocardiographic parameters, were equivalent to the echo-optimized and the empirical programming groups.12 The Adaptive CRT trial also had non-inferior clinical results regarding safety and effectiveness compared to echo-based optimization in the first six months of follow-up,13 as well as showing a significantly lower risk of atrial fibrillation compared to conventional biventricular therapy.14 Finally, the Clinical Evaluation on Advanced Resynchronization (CLEAR) study, a randomized pilot study of optimization of CRT in sinus rhythm patients using the SonR sensor algorithm, with a population of 199 patients, showed superiority compared to standard of care regarding clinical outcome (mostly driven from NYHA class) after one year of follow-up.15 Recently, a retrospective analysis of this study, regarding the association between the frequency of AV delay and VV delay optimization and one-year outcomes, concluded that systematic CRT optimization (at implant and at three and six months) was associated with a higher percentage of improved patients, fewer deaths and fewer hospitalizations,16 emphasizing the potential clinical benefit of frequent CRT optimization programming on long-term clinical response in this population.

Interest in the use of automatic algorithms to improve cardiac function and hemodynamics in patients undergoing CRT is increasing. Multicenter prospective randomized trials are underway to test the superiority of automatic IEGM- and hemodynamic-based algorithms compared to standard in-office manual echocardiography device optimization to improve CRT response in clinical practice.

References
[1]
A.J. Moss, W.J. Hall, D.S. Cannom, et al.
Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events.
N Engl J Med, 361 (2009), pp. 1329-1338
[2]
M.R. Bristow, L.A. Saxon, J. Boehmer, et al.
Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure.
N Engl J Med, 350 (2004), pp. 2140-2150
[3]
J.G. Cleland, J.C. Daubert, E. Erdmann, et al.
The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure.
N Engl J Med, 352 (2005), pp. 1539-1549
[4]
W. Mullens, R.A. Grimm, T. Verga, et al.
Insights from a cardiac resynchronization optimization clinic as part of a heart failure disease management program.
J Am Coll Cardiol, 53 (2009), pp. 765-773
[5]
P. Houthuizen, F.A. Bracke, B.M. van Gelder.
Atrioventricular and interventricular delay optimization in cardiac resynchronization therapy: physiological principles and overview of available methods.
Heart Fail Rev, 16 (2011), pp. 263-276
[6]
B. Van Gelder, F. Bracke, A. Meijer, et al.
Effect of optimizing the VV interval on left ventricular contractility in cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Am J Cardiol, 93 (2004), pp. 1500-1503
[7]
L. Antonini, A. Auriti, V. Pasceri, et al.
Optimization of the atrioventricular delay in sequential and biventricular pacing: physiological bases, critical review, and new purposes.
Europace, 14 (2012), pp. 929-938
[8]
D. Auger, U. Hoke, J. Bax, et al.
Effect of atrioventricular and ventriculoventricular delay optimization on clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis.
Am Heart J, 166 (2013), pp. 20-29
[9]
Y. Toyoshima, K. Inoue, K. Fujii, et al.
The clinical benefits of device optimization at long-term follow-up in cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the CRT Utilization By Interventional Cardiologists (CUBIC) study.
[10]
M. Brignole, A. Auricchio, G. Baron-Esquivias, et al.
2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Eur Heart J, 34 (2013), pp. 2281-2329
[11]
W.T. Abraham, D. Gras, C.M. Yu, et al.
Results from the FREEDOM trial: assess the safety and efficacy of frequent optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy.
HRS 2010 Late-Breaking Clinical Trials, (May 13, 2010),
[12]
K.A. Ellenbogen, M. Gold, T.E. Meyer, et al.
Primary results from the SmartDelay determined AV optimization: A comparison to other AV delay methods used in cardiac resynchronization therapy (SMART-AV) trial: A randomized trial comparing empirical, echocardiography-guided, and algorithmic atrioventricular delay programming in cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Circulation, 122 (2010), pp. 2660-2668
[13]
D. Martin, B. Lemke, D. Birnie, Adaptive CRT Study Investigators, et al.
Investigation of a novel algorithm for synchronized left-ventricular pacing and ambulatory optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results of the adaptive CRT trial.
Heart Rhythm., 9 (2012), pp. 1807-1814
[14]
D. Martin, J.H. Hudnall, B. Lemke, et al.
Can adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy reduce atrial fibrillation risk?.
Circulation, 128 (2013), pp. A17740
[15]
P. Ritter, P. Delnoy, L. Padeletti, et al.
A randomized pilot study of optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy in sinus rhythm patients using a peak endocardial acceleration sensor vs. standard methods.
Europace, 14 (2012), pp. 1324-1333
[16]
P. Delnoy, P. Ritter, H. Naegele, et al.
Association between frequent cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization and long-term clinical response: a post hoc analysis of the Clinical Evaluation on Advanced Resynchronization (CLEAR) pilot study.
Europace, 15 (2013), pp. 1174-1181
Copyright © 2015. Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia
Idiomas
Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia
Opções de artigo
Ferramentas
en pt

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

Ao assinalar que é «Profissional de Saúde», declara conhecer e aceitar que a responsável pelo tratamento dos dados pessoais dos utilizadores da página de internet da Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia (RPC), é esta entidade, com sede no Campo Grande, n.º 28, 13.º, 1700-093 Lisboa, com os telefones 217 970 685 e 217 817 630, fax 217 931 095 e com o endereço de correio eletrónico revista@spc.pt. Declaro para todos os fins, que assumo inteira responsabilidade pela veracidade e exatidão da afirmação aqui fornecida.