Key result
FFR-guided rate-adaptive pacing improves treadmill walk time by ~75 seconds versus conventional programming.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether tailoring heart rate response using individual noninvasive force-frequency relationship data favorably influences exercise capacity and LV function at 6 months in patients with HFrEF and cardiac implantable electronic devices.
Does tailored rate-response programming based on individual FFR data improve exercise time in patients with HFrEF and cardiac implantable electronic devices?
RCT (n=83)
Double-blind
1:1
No
Does tailored rate-response programming based on individual FFR data improve exercise time in patients with HFrEF and cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Absolute Event Rate: 75.4% vs 3.1%
p-value: p=0.044
Personalized rate-response programming based on noninvasive force-frequency relationship data significantly improves exercise time and preserves LV function at 6 months in HFrEF patients with cardiac devices.
Supports FFR-guided pacing to improve exercise capacity in HFrEF with CIEDs; extends evidence for individualized rate-response programming.
Background: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is characterized by blunting of the positive relationship between heart rate and left ventricular (LV) contractility known as the force-frequency relationship (FFR). We have previously described that tailoring the rate-response programming of cardiac implantable electronic devices in patients with HFrEF on the basis of individual noninvasive FFR data acutely improves exercise capacity. We aimed to examine whether using FFR data to tailor heart rate response in patients with HFrEF with cardiac implantable electronic devices favorably influences exercise capacity and LV function 6 months later. Methods: We conducted a single-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial in patients with stable symptomatic HFrEF taking optimal guideline-directed medical therapy and with a cardiac implantable electronic device (cardiac resynchronization therapy or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). Participants were randomized on a 1:1 basis between tailored rate-response programming on the basis of individual FFR data and conventional age-guided rate-response programming. The primary outcome measure was change in walk time on a treadmill walk test. Secondary outcomes included changes in LV systolic function, peak oxygen consumption, and quality of life. Results: We randomized 83 patients with a mean±SD age 74.6±8.7 years and LV ejection fraction 35.2±10.5. Mean change in exercise time at 6 months was 75.4 (95% CI, 23.4 to 127.5) seconds for FFR-guided rate-adaptive pacing and 3.1 (95% CI, −44.1 to 50.3) seconds for conventional settings (analysis of covariance; P =0.044 between groups) despite lower peak mean±SD heart rates (98.6±19.4 versus 112.0±20.3 beats per minute). FFR-guided heart rate settings had no adverse effect on LV structure or function, whereas conventional settings were associated with a reduction in LV ejection fraction. Conclusions: In this phase II study, FFR-guided rate-response programming determined using a reproducible, noninvasive method appears to improve exercise time and limit changes to LV function in people with HFrEF and cardiac implantable electronic devices. Work is ongoing to confirm our findings in a multicenter setting and on longer-term clinical outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02964650.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gierula et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=83). Tailored rate-response programming based on individual FFR data vs. Conventional age-guided rate-response programming was evaluated on Change in walk time on a treadmill walk test (p=0.044). FFR-guided rate-adaptive pacing improved treadmill walk time by a mean of 75.4 seconds compared to 3.1 seconds with conventional age-guided programming at 6 months (P=0.044).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: