Key result
Biventricular pacing combined with the SyncAV algorithm significantly increased the rate of echocardiographic response compared to conventional biventricular pacing (82.35% vs. 64.81%) in patients with heart failure.
Why the study?
Although the SyncAV algorithm shortens QRS duration beyond conventional biventricular pacing, evidence regarding its ability to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy response was lacking.
Does biventricular pacing combined with SyncAV improve echocardiographic and clinical responses compared to conventional biventricular pacing in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Cohort (n=122)
Yes
Does biventricular pacing combined with SyncAV improve echocardiographic and clinical responses compared to conventional biventricular pacing in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Absolute Event Rate: 82.35% vs 64.81%
p-value: p=0.036
Dynamic optimization of atrioventricular intervals using SyncAV in cardiac resynchronization therapy significantly improves left ventricular reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes compared to conventional biventricular pacing.
BiV+SyncAV was associated with greater LV remodeling and response rates; leaves open confirmation of benefit in randomized trials.
Background: The patient-tailored SyncAV algorithm shortens the QRS duration (QRSd) beyond what conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing can. However, evidence of the ability of SyncAV to improve the cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of CRT enhanced by SyncAV on echocardiographic and clinical responses. Methods and Results: Consecutive heart failure (HF) patients from three centers treated with a quadripolar CRT system (Abbott) were enrolled. The total of 122 patients were divided into BiV+SyncAV ( n = 68) and BiV groups ( n = 54) according to whether they underwent CRT with or without SyncAV. Electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and clinical data were assessed at baseline and during follow-up. Echocardiographic response to CRT was defined as a ≥15% decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and clinical response was defined as a NYHA class reduction of ≥1. At the 6-month follow-up, the baseline QRSd and LVESV decreased more significantly in the BiV+SyncAV than in the BiV group (QRSd −36.25 ± 16.33 vs. −22.72 ± 18.75 ms, P < 0.001; LVESV −54.19 ± 38.87 vs. −25.37 ± 36.48 ml, P < 0.001). Compared to the BiV group, more patients in the BiV+SyncAV group were classified as echocardiographic (82.35 vs. 64.81%; P = 0.036) and clinical responders (83.82 vs. 66.67%; P = 0.033). During follow-up, no deaths due to HF deterioration or severe procedure related complications occurred. Conclusion: Compared to BiV pacing, BiV combined with SyncAV leads to a more significant reduction in QRSd and improves LV remodeling and long-term outcomes in HF patients treated with CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=122). Biventricular pacing with SyncAV vs. Conventional biventricular pacing was evaluated on Echocardiographic response (≥15% decrease in LVESV) at 6 months (p=0.036). Biventricular pacing combined with the SyncAV algorithm significantly increased the rate of echocardiographic response compared to conventional biventricular pacing (82.35% vs. 64.81%) in patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: