Aims: The clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is variable. Multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing could achieve more effective haemodynamic response than single-point LV pacing. Deployment of an LV lead over myocardial scar is associated with a poor haemodynamic response to and clinical outcome of CRT. We sought to determine whether the acute haemodynamic response to CRT using three-pole LV multipoint pacing (CRT3P-MPP) is superior to that to conventional CRT using single-site LV pacing (CRTSP) in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and an LV free wall scar.
Methods and results: Sixteen patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy [aged 72.6 ± 7.7 years (mean ± SD), 81.3% male, QRS: 146.0 ± 14.2 ms, LBBB in 14 (87.5%)] in whom the LV lead was intentionally deployed straddling an LV free wall scar (assessed using cardiac magnetic resonance), underwent assessment of LV + dP/dtmax during CRT3P-MPP and CRTSP. Interindividually, the ΔLV + dP/dtmax in relation to AAI pacing with CRT3P-MPP (6.2 ± 13.3%) was higher than with basal and mid CRTSP (both P < 0.001), but similar to apical CRTSP. Intraindividually, significant differences in the ΔLV + dP/dtmax to optimal and worst pacing configurations were observed in 10 (62.5%) patients. Of the 8 patients who responded to at least one configuration, CRT3P-MPP was optimal in 5 (62.5%) and apical CRTSP was optimal in 3 (37.5%) (P = 0.0047).
Conclusions: In terms of acute haemodynamic response, CRT3P-MPP was comparable an apical CRTSP and superior to basal and distal CRTSP. In the absence of within-device haemodynamic optimization, CRT3P-MPP may offer a haemodynamic advantage over a fixed CRTSP configuration.
Keywords: Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Haemodynamics; Multipoint pacing; Multipolar leads.
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: firstname.lastname@example.org.