Key result
Adaptive CRT shows no benefit over conventional CRT for improving ventricular electrical uncoupling.
Why the study?
Adaptive CRT provides clinical benefits over conventional CRT, but their effects on electrical dyssynchrony have not been compared.
Does adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy improve electrical dyssynchrony compared to conventional CRT in patients receiving CRT for routine clinical indications?
RCT (n=27)
Double-blind
Random stratified block, 1:1
No
Does adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy improve electrical dyssynchrony compared to conventional CRT in patients receiving CRT for routine clinical indications?
Adaptive CRT and conventional CRT have largely similar effects on electrical dyssynchrony at 6 months.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Adaptive CRT shows no superiority over conventional CRT for electrical dyssynchrony; confirms similar effects and supports conventional CRT as standard.
Introduction Adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) is known to have clinical benefits over conventional CRT; however, their effects on the electrical dyssynchrony have not been compared. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in patients receiving CRT for routine clinical indications. Participants underwent cardiac computed tomography and 128-electrodes body surface mapping. We measured electrical dyssynchrony on the epicardial surface using noninvasive electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) before and 6 months post-CRT. Ventricular electrical uncoupling (VEU) was calculated as the difference between the mean left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) activation times. An electrical dyssynchrony index (EDI) was computed as the standard deviation of local epicardial activation times. Results We randomized 27 participants (mean age 64±12 y; 34% female; 53% ischemic cardiomyopathy; LV ejection fraction 28±8%; QRS duration 155±21 ms; strict left bundle branch block (LBBB) in 13%). In atypical LBBB (n=11;41%) with S-waves in V 5 -V 6 , conduction block occurred in the anterior RV, as opposed to the interventricular groove in those who met the strict LBBB criteria. As compared to baseline, VEU reduced post-CRT in aCRT (median reduction 18.9(interquartile range 4.3-29.2 ms; P=0.034), but not in conventional CRT (21.4(−30.0 to 49.9 ms; P=0.525) group. There were no differences in the degree of change in VEU and EDI indices between treatment groups. Conclusion The effect of aCRT and conventional CRT on electrical dyssynchrony is largely similar. Further studies are needed to investigate if atypical LBBB with prominent S wave in V 5 -V 6 responds to His bundle pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haq et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with indications for CRT (n=27). Adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) vs. Conventional CRT was evaluated on Change in ventricular electrical uncoupling (VEU) at 6 months (median reduction in ms). Adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy and conventional CRT had a largely similar effect on electrical dyssynchrony, with no significant differences in the degree of change in ventricular electrical uncoupling.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: