The last shall be the first: the role of combined QLV- and CMR-determined electromechanical concordance in predicting optimal left ventricular stimulation site in cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background/introduction Optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) response still represents a significant challenge to cardiac electrophysiology. In this regard, perhaps the area of greatest uncertainty revolves around optimal left ventricular lead (LVL) position and in particular whether this should be directed at areas of latest electrical or mechanical activation given the equivocal evidence on their precise relationship in heart failure (HF) patients. Furthermore, while echocardiography has demonstrated that LVL aimed at regions of greatest mechanical delay maximises CRT response, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with its greater spatial resolution and tissue definition is yet to demonstrate a role in doing so. Purpose To retrospectively evaluate concordance between latest electrical and CMR-determined mechanical activation in a CRT population and its relationship with reverse remodeling. Methods This is a retrospective single center analysis of 104 CRT patients. All patients had CMR and echocardiography performed before implantation. During implantation, coronary sinus angiogram was performed and electrical delay (QLV time with RV-LV time greater than 80 ms) was mapped on all veins suitable for lead implantation and LVL was positioned in the region of latest electrical activation programming LVL cathode accordingly. LVL cathode position was thus assumed to represent the region of latest electrical delay. A post-hoc analysis was then conducted by means of CART-Tech® software providing radial strain and scar maps on a 36-segment anatomical model. Patients were then stratified based on concordance between LVL cathode position (using 3D heart models superimposed on 2D angiography images) and most mechanically delayed segments (either the three most delayed segments or adjacent ones) or non concordance (one or more segments between LVL cathode and three most mechanically delayed segments). Data from patient follow-up was collected with echocardiography at least 3 months after implant date. CRT response was expressed as reduction in end-systolic volume (ESV) greater than 15%. Results A preliminary analysis of the first 30 patients of our cohort was conducted. Electromechanical concordance and non-concordance were present in 24 and 6 patients, respectively. Baseline patient characteristics including demographics, comorbidities, HF aetiology, ECG and echocardiography features were comparable between groups except for scar burden, which was higher in the non-concordance group. Response to CRT was 80% in the concordant vs. 20% in the non-concordant group. Conclusions While a confounding effect of scar burden cannot be excluded, these preliminary data suggest that electromechanical concordance in LVL cathode placement may represent a predictor of optimal CRT response. The full scope of this study will be fully appreciated in the coming month on completion of analysis of the entire patient cohort.