Key result
Preferential LV pacing faces standard biventricular pacing in an ongoing trial assessing cardiac function.
Why the study?
CRT nonresponse is linked to right ventricular dysfunction, and preferential left ventricular pacing may overcome this by achieving left ventricular resynchronization while preserving intrinsic right-sided activation.
Does preferential left ventricular pacing improve cardiac function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in CRT-eligible patients with heart failure compared to standard biventricular pacing?
RCT (n=220)
No
Does preferential left ventricular pacing improve cardiac function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in CRT-eligible patients with heart failure compared to standard biventricular pacing?
The READAPT trial is designed to evaluate whether preferential left ventricular pacing improves cardiac efficiency, functional status, and clinical outcomes compared to standard biventricular pacing in CRT-eligible patients.
Nonresponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been related with right ventricular dysfunction. Ventriculoarterial coupling (VAC) assesses energy efficiency of the failing heart and stroke work maximization for a given contractility, for both systemic and pulmonary circulations. Preferential left ventricular pacing (pLVP) can overcome iatrogenic right ventricular dysfunction by achieving left ventricle resynchronization and by allowing for intrinsic activation of the right side, with ramifications extending beyond cardiac output and atrial fibrillation occurrence. In the present article, we detail the design of a single-center randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effects of a pLVP algorithm. More specifically, following randomization of 220 CRT-eligible patients to standard biventricular pacing and pLVP, their clinical course will be followed for 12 months, through echocardiography to study indices of systolic and diastolic function of ventricles, left and right side VAC to evaluate efficiency, and cardiopulmonary exercise test to objectively document improvements in functional status, as well as a self-reported quality of life questionnaire. Device programming will be based on echocardiography-evaluated maximization of stroke volume and subsequent interventricular and atrioventricular delay adjustments delegated to the device. Findings of this trial may provide evidence for alternative programming of the devices, linking pLVP to improved clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dilaveris et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Heart Failure (n=220). Preferential left ventricular pacing (pLVP) algorithm vs. Standard biventricular pacing was evaluated on Indices of systolic and diastolic function of ventricles, left and right side ventriculoarterial coupling, cardiopulmonary exercise test, and quality of life. Preferential left ventricular pacing will be compared to standard biventricular pacing for improving cardiac function and clinical course in 220 CRT-eligible patients over 12 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: