Long-Term Effect of Different Optimizing Methods for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure: A Randomized and Controlled Pilot Study

Abstract

Aim: During cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), optimized programming of the atrioventricular (AV) delay and ventricular-to-ventricular (VV) interval can lead to improved hemodynamics, symptomatic response, and left ventricular systolic function. Currently, however, there is no recommendation for the best optimization method. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of 4 different CRT optimization methods. Methods: One hundred and twenty-four consecutive CRT patients with severe heart failure and left bundle-branch block configuration were randomly assigned into four groups to undergo AV/VV delay optimization through echocardiogram (ECHO; n = 30), electrocardiogram (ECG; n = 32), QuickOpt algorithm (n = 28), and nominal AV/VV (n = 36) groups. Patients were followed up and underwent examinations, including New York Heart Association (NYHA) cardiac functional classification, 6-min walking distance (6MWD), and echocardiography, at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. The patients’ survival and clinical outcomes were compared among the four groups. Results: Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that the median survival was the same in the 4 groups: ECHO, 43 months; ECG, 44 months; QuickOpt, 44 months, and nominal, 41 months. At the 6-month follow-up, the reduction in left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was significantly less in the nominal group (–1.91 ± 2.58 mm) than that in the other three groups (ECHO: –3.70 ± 2.78 mm, p = 0.012; ECG: –3.53 ± 3.14 mm, p = 0.020; QuickOpt: –3.46 ± 2.65 mm, p = 0.032); 6MWD was significantly shorter in the nominal group (87.88 ± 34.76 m) than that in the other three groups (ECHO: 120.63 ± 56.93 m, p = 0.006; ECG: 114.97 ± 54.95 m, p = 0.020; QuickOpt: 114.57 ± 35.41 m, p = 0.027). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) significantly increased in ECHO (7.23 ± 2.76%, p = 0.010), ECG (8.50 ± 3.17%, p < 0.001), and QuickOpt (8.39 ± 2.90%, p < 0.001) compared with the nominal group (5.35 ± 2.59%). There were no significant differences among the groups in the aforementioned parameters at 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. Conclusion: While LVEDD, LVEF, 6MWD, and NYHA were significantly improved in ECHO, ECG, and QuickOpt at 6 months, there were no significant improvements in any of the groups at 12, 24, and 48 months. These findings suggested that the long-term effect of the four CRT methods for heart failure was not significantly different.