Key result
Epicardial pacing close to scar increases repolarization dispersion and arrhythmogenic vulnerability versus distant pacing.
Why the study?
CRT increases VT risk in ICM patients when the LV lead is near scar, but the electrophysiological mechanisms underpinning this risk were unclear.
Does left ventricular pacing in proximity to myocardial scar increase surrogates of ventricular tachycardia risk in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Does left ventricular pacing in proximity to myocardial scar increase surrogates of ventricular tachycardia risk in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy?
p-value: p=<.01
Pacing at least 3.5 cm away from myocardial scar during CRT may avoid increasing VT risk by minimizing dispersion of repolarization and the vulnerable window.
Supports caution with scar-adjacent LV pacing in CRT; hypothesis-generating for optimal lead positioning pending clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) increases the risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) when the left ventricular (LV) epicardial lead is implanted in proximity to scar. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the mechanisms underpinning this risk by investigating the effects of pacing on local electrophysiology (EP) in relation to scar that provides a substrate for VT in ICM patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: Imaging data from ICM patients (n = 24) undergoing CRT were used to create patient-specific LV anatomic computational models including scar morphology. Simulations of LV epicardial pacing at 0.2-4.5 cm from the scar were performed using EP models of chronic infarct and heart failure (HF). Dispersion of repolarization and the vulnerable window were computed as surrogates for VT risk. RESULTS: Simulations predict that pacing in proximity to scar (0.2 cm) compared to more distant pacing to a scar (4.5 cm) significantly (P <.01) increased dispersion of repolarization in the vicinity of the scar and widened (P <.01) the vulnerable window, increasing the likelihood of unidirectional block. Moreover, slow conduction during HF further increased dispersion (∼194%). Analysis of variance and post hoc tests show significantly (P <.01) reduced repolarization dispersion when pacing ≥3.5 cm from the scar compared to pacing at 0.2 cm. CONCLUSION: Increased dispersion of repolarization in the vicinity of the scar and widening of the vulnerable window when pacing in proximity to scar provides a mechanistic explanation for VT induction in ICM-CRT with lead placement proximal to scar. Pacing 3.5 cm or more from scar may avoid increasing VT risk in ICM-CRT patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costa et al. (2019) studied Ischemic cardiomyopathy (n=24). Simulated left ventricular epicardial pacing in proximity to scar (0.2 cm) vs. Simulated pacing distant to scar (4.5 cm) was evaluated on Dispersion of repolarization (volume of high repolarization gradients) and vulnerable window (p=<.01). Simulated epicardial pacing in proximity to scar (0.2 cm) significantly increased dispersion of repolarization and widened the vulnerable window compared to more distant pacing (4.5 cm) (P<.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: