1Department of Cardiology, Ospedali del Tigullio, Via don Bobbio, 16033 Lavagna, Italy
2Department of Cardiology, University Hospital and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
3Department of Cardiology, Ospedale Civile, Cento, Italy
4Department of Cardiology, Ospedale Umberto I, Mestre, Italy
5Department of Cardiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
6Department of Cardiology, University Hospital, Heraklion, Greece
7Department of Cardiology, Ospedale Cisanello, Pisa, Italy
8Department of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden
9Department of Cardiology, Ospedale S Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy
10Department of Cardiology, Ospedale Civile, Imperia, Italy
Received 3 July 2004; revised 7 October 2004; accepted 28 October 2004; online publish-ahead-of-print 20 December 2004.
* Corresponding author. Tel: +39 0185 329569; fax: +39 0185 306506. E-mail address: mbrignole{at}asl4.liguria.it
See page 637 for the editorial comment on this article (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi234)
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods and results Prospective randomized, single-blind, 3-month crossover comparison between RV and LV pacing (phase 1) and between RV and BiV pacing (phase 2) performed in 56 patients (70±8 years, 34 males) affected by severely symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation, uncontrolled ventricular rate, or heart failure. Primary endpoints were quality of life and exercise capacity. Compared with RV pacing, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ) score improved by 2 and 10% with LV and BiV pacing, respectively, the effort dyspnoea item of the Specific Symptom Scale (SSS) changed by 0 and 2%, the Karolinska score by 6 and 14% (P<0.05 for BiV), the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class by 5 and 11% (P<0.05 for BiV), the 6-min walked distance by 12 (+4%) and 4 m (+1%), and the ejection fraction by 5 and 5% (P<0.05 for both). BiV pacing but not LV pacing was slightly better than RV pacing in the subgroup of patients with preserved systolic function and absence of native left bundle branch block. Compared with pre-ablation measures, the Minnesota LHFQ score improved by 37, 39, and 49% during RV, LV, and BiV pacing, respectively, the effort dyspnoea item of the SSS by 25, 25, and 39%, the Karolinska score by 39, 42, and 54%, the NYHA class by 21, 25, and 30%, the 6-min walking distance by 35 (12%), 47 (16%), and 51 m (19%) and the ejection fraction by 5, 10, and 10% (all differences P<0.05).
Conclusions Rhythm regularization achieved with AV-junction ablation improved quality of life and exercise capacity with all modes of pacing. LV and BiV pacing provided modest or no additional favourable effect compared with RV pacing.
Key Words: Atrial fibrillation Heart failure Bundle branch block Catheter ablation Resynchronization pacing
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The Optimal Pacing Site (OPSITE) study is a prospective randomized, single-blind cross-over comparison between right, left (LV) or biventricular (BiV) pacing for patients with permanent AF undergoing ablation and pacing therapy. The study consisted of an acute and a chronic evaluation. The results of the acute evaluation have been published previously.5
In this report we present the results of the chronic evaluation. The main study hypothesis was that LV pacing and BiV pacing are better than RV pacing in improving quality of life (QoL) and exercise capacity in patients with permanent AF treated with ablation and pacing therapy. Secondary objectives were the comparison between two pre-defined subgroups of patients with preserved or depressed systolic function, and the comparison of the two modes of pacing with baseline measures in order to evaluate the effect of AV-junction ablation on quality of life and exercise capacity.
![]() |
Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Patient exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure, despite optimized therapy; (ii) severe concomitant non-cardiac disease; (iii) need for surgical intervention; (iv) myocardial infarction within 3 months; (v) sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation; (vi) previously implanted pacemaker; (vii) inabilty to obtain reliable RV and LV pacing and persistent AV block.
Two different subgroups were pre-defined for analysis: patients with an ejection fraction >40% and absence of LBBB pattern (group A); and patients with heart failure, i.e. those with ejection fraction 40% and/or LBBB pattern (group B).
Pacemaker implantation and ablation were allowed at different times but required to occur <6 weeks apart. Right ventricular leads were positioned in the RV apex. LV leads were positioned via the coronary sinus in a position considered most appropriate by the implanting physician; in case of failure of pacing through the coronary sinus, an epicardial lead was implanted. A conventional dual-chamber rate-responsive pacemaker was used; the atrial port of the pacemaker was connected to the LV lead and the ventricular port to the RV lead. The AV interval of the pacemaker (the effective LVRV interval) was programmed 30 ms in order to achieve (almost) simultaneous BiV pacing or
200 ms during the LV phase in order to avoid RV pacing but to assure a back-up RV pacing in case of LV pacing failure. The pacemaker was programmed VVIR during the RV phase. Lowest rate was set at 80 beats per min (b.p.m.).
Study design and randomization
The study was divided into two phases. Each phase consisted of a 3-month randomized crossover design:
Following ablation and pacing therapy the patients underwent randomization and phase 1 follow-up started immediately. Randomization was computer-generated, blocked by centre, and assignments were hidden from participants until the time of allocation. Two different randomization sequences were generated with phase 1 assignment linked to phase 2:
Endpoints
Primary endpoints were the evaluation of QoL and exercise capacity performed at the end of each of the 3-month periods. Secondary endpoints were the evaluation of the effects of AV-junction ablation on QoL and exercise capacity and the comparison between the two pre-defined subgroups.
Outcome measures
These were assessed at the time of enrolment and at the end of each 3-month study period. QoL was measured by means of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ),6 the Specific Symptoms Scale (SSS),4,7 the modified Karolinska questionnaire,8 and the NYHA classification.9 Exercise capacity was assessed by the 6-min walking test (average of two consecutive tests).10
Statistical analysis
Endpoints could be assessed only in patients with no missing data after completion of both crossover periods. Paired and unpaired one-sided Student's t-test was used for comparison of continuous variables as appropriate. The z-test was used for intrapatient comparison of proportions. The treatmentperiod interaction (residual or carryover effect) was tested by a Student's t-test applied to the individual sums of the first and second period data. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant.
Sample size
In patients with severely symptomatic chronic AF, uncontrolled by conventional drugs, the mean score of the Minnesota LHFQ was 44 and decreased to 32 after AV-junction ablation and pacing,4 the highest score of the SSS (6.5 points) was related to effort dyspnoea and decreased to 4.5 after AV-junction ablation and pacing.4 The minimum chance necessary to allow 99% confidence that a real change of the 6-min walked distance has occurred is 10% of the average performance, using the averaged results of two consecutive tests at baseline.10 Based on these results, a 20% reduction of the Minnesota LHFQ and of the effort dyspnoea item of the SSS, and a 10% increase in the 6-min walked distance were pre-determined as the minimum requirements for superiority of LV-based pacing over RV pacing of sufficient clinical relevance. The sample size able to provide 90% power to show an intrapatient difference, with a probability of 95%, was 40 patients.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
Compared with RV pacing, the improvement with LV was modest and only echocardiographic variables showed statistically significant changes (Table 3). Conversely, a great improvement was observed from baseline to both RV and LV modes for all variables. For example, the Minnesota LHFQ improved by only 2% from RV to LV pacing and 37 and 39% from baseline to RV and LV pacing, respectively. LV pacing led to no improvement in effort dyspnoea score of the SSS from RV to LV pacing, whereas the improvement from baseline to RV and LV pacing was 25%. The Karolinska score improved by 6% from RV to LV pacing, and 39 and 42% from baseline to RV and LV pacing, respectively. The NYHA class improved by 5% from RV to LV pacing, and 21 and 25% from baseline to RV and LV pacing, respectively. The 6-min walked distance increased by 12 m (4%) from RV to LV pacing, and 35 (12%) and 47 m (16%) from baseline to RV and LV pacing, respectively.
|
At the end of phase 1, 23 (44%) patients preferred LV pacing, 16 (31%) RV pacing, and 13 (25%) had no preference (P=0.04).
Phase 2
Forty-one patients completed both phase 1 and 2. In phase 2, QRS duration was 170±29 ms with RV pacing and 156±29 ms with BiV pacing (P=0.001).
Compared with RV pacing, BiV pacing showed a significant improvement in Karolinska questionnaire and NYHA class but not in the other measures of QoL. In absolute terms, however, the improvement was modest and much less than that observed from baseline to RV and BiV pacing for all variables (Table 4). For example, the Minnesota LHFQ improved by 10% from RV to BiV pacing, and 43 and 49% from baseline to RV and BiV pacing, respectively. The effort dyspnoea score of the SSS improved by 2% from RV to BiV pacing, and 38 and 39% from baseline to RV and BiV pacing. The Karolinska score improved by 14% from RV to BiV pacing, and 47 and 54% from baseline to RV and BiV pacing. The NYHA class improved by 11% from RV to BiV pacing, and 22 and 30% from baseline to RV and BiV pacing. The 6-min walked distance increased by 4 m (1%) from RV to BiV pacing, and 53 (18%) and 57 m (19%) from baseline to RV and BiV pacing. Conversely, the palpitation score of the SSS worsened significantly with both LV and BiV pacing.
|
Figures 2, 3, and 4 evaluate the effect of the two sequences of randomization and the treatmentperiod interaction (residual or carryover effect) of the Minnesota LHFQ, the 6-min walked distance, and the ejection fraction. No statistical difference was observed except from baseline.
|
|
|
|
Subgroup analysis
Among the patients who completed phase 1, 19 belonged to group A and 33 to group B (25 of group B had LBBB) (Table 6). The ejection fraction was 53±8 and 31±10%, and the QRS width was 100±12 and 144±28 ms, respectively, in groups A and B. The effects of LV vs. RV pacing were not statistically different in the two groups.
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The situation is almost certainly one in which some patients are showing marked clinical benefit, balanced by other patients with very little benefit. In Table 8 we have reported the percentage of patients who showed a benefit from one mode with respect to the other of sufficient entity to be clinically relevant. Up to a quarter of patients were better with RV pacing than with LV or BiV pacing. Only a quarter or less of the patients had a relevant objective benefit from LV or BiV pacing. Thus a heterogeneity effect of resynchronization therapy is present in patients with AF.
|
The improvement in QoL measures with LV and BiV pacing is consistent with that of the ejection fraction at the end of each 3-month crossover phase in this studywhich was 5 and 5%and that observed during the acute study performed immediately after AV-junction ablation, which was 6%.5 An improvement of ejection fraction was also observed by Leclercq et al.11 and by Leon et al.12 The improvement of ejection fraction was due to a reduction of both end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters (Tables 3 and 4) and suggests a beneficial influence of resynchronization pacing on the heart. It is possible that the duration of the present study is too short to show functional benefit over the benefit of rate control (as experienced in the ROVA trial13) and that a longer observation period could allow the potential benefit of resynchronization therapy to become more manifest.
Only a few other studies have evaluated the effect of LV-based pacing on QoL of the patients with AF and none have evaluated its effect on mortality. In the AF arm of the only other randomized clinical study, the MUSTIC trial,14 performed on 39 evaluable patients, the intention-to-treat analysis did not show any statistically significant difference in either primary or secondary endpoints and efficacy analysis showed only slight significant difference in a few endpoints between BiV and RV pacing.
It seems likely that the main reason for the modest effect of LV-based pacing in patients with AF is that it is additive to the powerful beneficial effect of rhythm regularization and slowing achieved with AV-junction ablation per se, which reduces the amount of the potential additional benefits obtainable through LV or BiV pacing, at least over the time frame of this study. The beneficial effect of ablation and RV pacing is well known from both haemodynamic5,1518 and clinical studies.4,7,1921
This situation does not occur in patients in sinus rhythm undergoing resynchronization therapy.
Comparison with patients in sinus rhythm
The effect of resynchronization therapy in patients in sinus rhythm seems to be different from the effect in those in AF. There is increasing evidence for the favourable effect of cardiac resynchronization pacing in patients with heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay who are in sinus rhythm.2225 In the sinus rhythm arm of the single-blind, crossover MUSTIC trial,22 the Minnesota LHFQ improved by 13 points (32%) and the 6-min walked distance improved by 73 m (23%) with BiV pacing compared with no pacing. Auricchio et al.,23 in a single-blind crossover study, showed an improvement in the Minnesota LHFQ by eight points (29%), of 6-min walked distance by 47 m (12%) with LV pacing vs. no pacing. In the single-blind, parallel-controlled, randomized MIRACLE trial,24 the Minnesota LHFQ score improved by nine points and the 6-min walked distance by 29 m in paced vs. not paced patients. In the double-blind, parallel-controlled MIRACLE ICD trial,25 the Minnesota LHFQ improved by a median of 6.5 points, NYHA class by 1.0 point, treadmill exercise duration by 66 s whereas the 6-min walked distance increased by only 2 m.
Apart from the specific effect of AV-junction ablation, there are other differences between patients in sinus rhythm and in AF that could explain different clinical results. In sinus rhythm patients, the optimal resynchronization occurs with the fusion of intrinsic RV activation and paced LV activation, which is dependent on AV synchronization.26 Clearly, after ablating the AV-junction, intrinsic rhythm is not conducted and thus fusion is not possible. Typically, patients enrolled in sinus rhythm have very low ejection fraction values and wide QRS complexes. In our study the mean ejection fraction was 38±14% and only half had LBBB. Despite the fact that the mean LV ejection fraction was only moderately diminished, we observed a high mortality of 11% during the 1-year follow-up. In the MIRACLE trial,24 patients in sinus rhythm had a mortality of 6.1% at 6 months with an ejection fraction of about 22%.
Subgroup analysis
The clinical results were similar or even better, with BiV pacing, in the patients with preserved systolic function and no LBBB than in the other subgroup. This finding is original and confirms the haemodynamic effect seen in the acute study.5 In contrast, in sinus rhythm patients, a benefit was seen in patients with QRS duration >150 ms but not in those with a QRS duration of 120150 ms.23 However, this finding needs to be verified in a larger population.
Comparison between LV and BiV pacing
Theoretically, in the absence of fusion between intrinsic RV activation and paced LV activation, pre-excitation of the left ventricle alone may create delayed activation of the septum and right ventricle, which might worsen ventricular pump function, analogous to the deficits generated by RV-only pacing. In the present study, BiV pacing resulted in a greater shortening of the QRS duration, possibly indicating better ventricular synchronization. As a result, BiV pacing may be more effective than LV pacing in AF patients. The study was, however, not designed for this comparison. A comparison between phases 1 and 2 cannot be performed because of the different populations due to several drop-outs in phase 2. Among the patients who completed both phases of the study, we were unable to find any statistical difference between LV and BiV pacing except for an advantage of BiV but not for LV pacing in subgroup A patients (Table 7). Finally, the study is probably underpowered to show small differences between the two modes of pacing. Thus, we believe that it is prudent not to draw any conclusion in this respect.
Study power
Although the study population was small, it is unlikely that even with a larger population we would have observed clinically important favourable results on the primary endpoints of the study. The improvement in QoL was lower than expected (see Sample size section). For example, the increase in the 6-min walked distance was 4% (95% CI 4% to +10%) in phase 1 and 1% (95% CI 5% to +7%) in phase 2; the decrease in the LHFQ score was 2% (95% CI +11% to 16%) in phase 1 and 10% (95% CI +4% to 24%) in phase 2.
Limitations
Selection bias might have been introduced into the comparison of BiV and RV. Fifteen patients dropped out from the study before the termination of phase 2. The study population included for the comparison between RV and BiV in the second phase depends on the outcome of the first phase and is therefore not necessarily the population of interest. Even if not significant, some treatmentperiod interaction could have been present. On the other hand, the similarity of measures between the two RV periods (one in phase 1 and the other in phase 2) suggests stability of clinical condition. Therefore, the clinical significance of the study remains, i.e. BiV pacing provided modest additive clinical benefit to that already achieved with AV-junction ablation and BiV pacing benefits are not very different from those obtained with LV pacing alone.
Conclusions and perspectives
Rhythm regularization achieved with AV-junction ablation improved QoL and exercise capacity with all modes of pacing. LV and BiV pacing provided modest or no additional favourable effect compared with RV pacing during the 3-month observation period. Results are heterogeneous due to a large interpatient variability, suggesting the need for different methods of patient stratification. The favourable effect of BiV pacing in the subgroup of patients with preserved systolic function and narrow QRS is interesting but needs further validation. A longer observation period could have enhanced the adverse haemodynamic effect of non-physiological RV pacing, thus allowing the potential benefit of LV-based pacing therapy to become manifest. However, the study confirms that ventricular rate control and RV pacing is a very effective and attractive therapy for patients with permanent AF and refractory heart failure.4,13 LV or BiV pacing cannot be recommended as a first line treatment for all patients with AF and should probably be restricted and delayed being offered to patients who have no benefit from RV pacing alone or have deterioration in their clinical condition late after ablation. Delayed BiV upgrading was very effective in a prospective uncontrolled study.12 Alternatively, if the predictive value of tissue-Doppler echocardiography or other imaging techniques is also confirmed in patients with AF as it has been in sinus rhythm,27 these techniques could help provide a better stratification at the time of ablation and pacing therapy.
![]() |
Appendix |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Steering committee: M. Brignole (co-chair), M. Gammage (co-chair), P. Alboni, A. Raviele, R. Sutton, P. Vardas.
Executive committee: M. Brignole, M. Gammage.
Data and statistical analysis: M. Brignole, M. Gammage, E. Puggioni.
Participating centres and investigators (number of patients in brackets): Ospedali del Tigullio, Lavagna (17): Puggioni E, Lupi G, Brignole M; Ospedale S Chiara, Pisa (8): Soldati E, Bongiorni MG; Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm (7): Gadler F, Bergfeldt L; University Hospital, Eraklion (6): Simantirakis EN, Vardas P; Ospedale S Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia (6): Tomasi C, Menozzi C; Ospedale Civile, Imperia (3): Mureddu R, Leoncini M, Musso G; Ospedale Umberto I, Mestre (3): Corrado A, Gasparini G, Raviele A; Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham (3): Gammage M; Ospedale Civile, Cento (2): Scarfò S, Alboni P; Ospedale S Pietro Igneo, Fucecchio (1): Del Rosso A.
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Related articles in EHJ: