Key result
SyncAV optimization is linked to ~6% higher LVEF at 6 months in chronic CRT.
Why the study?
Whether reprogramming of chronic CRT devices to increase electrical synchrony using the SyncAV algorithm translates into echocardiographic improvement remains unclear.
Does reprogramming chronic CRT devices with the SyncAV fusion pacing algorithm improve echocardiographic parameters in patients with intrinsic atrioventricular conduction?
Cohort (n=34)
No
Does reprogramming chronic CRT devices with the SyncAV fusion pacing algorithm improve echocardiographic parameters in patients with intrinsic atrioventricular conduction?
Absolute Event Rate: 36.5% vs 30.9%
p-value: p=<0.001
Reprogramming chronic CRT devices with the SyncAV fusion pacing algorithm significantly improves left ventricular ejection fraction and reduces end-systolic volume at 6 months.
SyncAV reprogramming may improve echocardiographic parameters in CRT; leaves open whether randomized trials should test clinical outcomes.
Background Whether reprogramming of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) to increase electrical synchrony translates into echocardiographic improvement remains unclear. SyncAV is an algorithm that allows fusion of intrinsic conduction with biventricular pacing. We aimed to assess whether reprogramming chronically implanted CRT devices with SyncAV is associated with improved echocardiographic parameters. Methods Patients at a quaternary center with previously implanted CRT devices with a programmable SyncAV algorithm underwent routine electrocardiography-based SyncAV optimization during regular device clinic visits. This analysis included only patients who could be programmed to the SyncAV algorithm (i.e., in sinus rhythm with intrinsic atrioventricular conduction). Echocardiography was performed before and 6 months after CRT optimization. Results Of 64 consecutive, potentially eligible patients who underwent assessment, 34 who were able to undergo SyncAV programming were included. Their mean age was 74 ± 9 years, 41% were female, and 59% had ischemic cardiomyopathy. The mean time from CRT implant to SyncAV optimization was 17.8 ± 8.5 months. At 6-month follow-up, SyncAV optimization was associated with a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean LVEF 36.5% ± 13.3% vs 30.9% ± 13.3%; P < 0.001) and a reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (mean LVESV 110.5 ± 57.5 mL vs 89.6 ± 52.4 mL; P < 0.001) compared with baseline existing CRT programming. Conclusion CRT reprogramming to maximize biventricular fusion pacing significantly increased LVEF and reduced LVESV in patients with chronic CRT devices. Further studies are needed to assess if a continuous fusion pacing algorithm improves long-term clinical outcomes and to identify which patients are most likely to derive benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
AlTurki et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with chronic CRT (n=34). SyncAV optimization vs. Baseline existing CRT programming was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p=<0.001). SyncAV optimization in patients with chronic CRT devices significantly increased mean LVEF (36.5% vs 30.9%; P<0.001) and reduced LVESV (89.6 mL vs 110.5 mL; P<0.001) at 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: