Evaluating multisite pacing strategies in cardiac resynchronization therapy in the preclinical setting.

Abstract

BackgroundMultisite pacing strategies that improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have been proposed. Current available options are pacing 2 electrodes in a multipolar lead in a single vein (multipoint pacing [MPP]) and pacing using 2 leads in separate veins (multizone pacing [MZP]).ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare in a systematic manner the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) and electrophysiological effects of MPP and MZP and compare them with conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP).MethodsHemodynamic and electrophysiological effects were evaluated in a porcine model of acute left bundle branch block (LBBB) (n = 8). AHR was assessed as LVdP/dtmax. Activation times were measured using >100 electrodes around the epicardium, measuring total activation time (TAT) and left ventricular activation time (LVAT).ResultsCompared to LBBB, BiVP, MZP, and MPP reduced TAT by 26% ± 10%, 32% ± 13%, and 32% ± 14%, respectively (P = NS between modes) and LVAT by 4% ± 5%, 11% ± 5%, and 12% ± 5%, respectively (P <.05 BiVP vs MPP and MZP). On average, BiVP increased LVdP/dtmax by 8% ± 4%, and optimal BiVP increased LVdP/dtmax by 13% ± 4%. The additional improvement in LVdP/dtmax by MZP and MPP was significant only when its increase during BiVP and decrease in TAT were poor (lower 25% of all sites in 1 subject). The increase in LVdP/dtmax was larger when large interelectrode distances (>5 cm vs <2.2 cm) were used.ConclusionIn this animal model of acute LBBB, MPP and MZP create similar degrees of electrical resynchronization and hemodynamic effect, which are larger if interelectrode distance is large. MPP and MZP increase the benefit of CRT only if the left ventricular lead used for BiVP provides poor response.