Cardiac implantable electronic devices have transformed medicine as they improve quality of life and prevent premature death. In palliative care settings, deactivation of these devices must be discussed, particularly at end-of-life. In terminally ill patients it is consensual to recommend implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation once shocks are frequent and painful. Concerning pacemakers, the decision to deactivate is controversial and it usually is not an option at patients\' end-of-life, since in pacing-dependent patients, such low heart rates might induce symptoms of bradycardia, with no impact on survival. Regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy, deactivation is not recommended as it can worsen symptoms. Left ventricular assistance device deactivation at end-of-life is a well-accepted practice, since it has the benefit of ending the physical burden associated with the device. Advance care planning should be encouraged and patients should be informed that deactivation is possible.

OBJECTIVE: One third of patients do not improve after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Septal flash (SF) and apical rocking (ApRock) are deformation patterns observed on echocardiography in most patients eligible for CRT. These markers of mechanical dyssynchrony have been associated to improved outcome after CRT in observational studies and may be useful to better select patients. The aim of this trial is to investigate whether the current guideline criteria for selecting patients for CRT should be modified and include SF and ApRock to improve therapy success rate, reduce excessive costs and prevent exposure to device-related complications in patients who would not benefit from CRT.
METHODS: The AMEND-CRT trial is a multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, sham-controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. The trial will include 578 patients scheduled for CRT according to the 2021 ESC guidelines who satisfy all inclusion criteria. The randomization is performed 1:1 to an active control arm (\'guideline arm\') or an experimental arm (\'echo arm\'). All participants receive a device, but in the echo arm, CRT is activated only when SF or ApRock or both are present. The outcome of both arms will be compared after 1 year. The primary outcome measures are the average change in left ventricular end-systolic volume and patient outcome assessed using a modified Packer Clinical Composite Score.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this trial will redefine the role of echocardiography in CRT and potentially determine which patients with heart failure and a prolonged QRS duration should receive CRT, especially in patients who currently have a class IIa or class IIb recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular lead positioning represents a key step in CRT optimization. However, evidence for its guidance based on specific topographical factors and related imaging techniques is sparse.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze reverse remodeling (RR) and clinical events in CRT recipients based on LV cathode (LVC) position relative to latest mechanical activation (LMA) and scar as determined by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR).
METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study of 68 consecutive Q-LV-guided CRT-D and CRT-P recipients. Through CMR-based 3D reconstructions overlayed on fluoroscopy images, LVCs were stratified as concordant, adjacent, or discordant to LMA (3 segments with latest and greatest radial strain) and scar (segments with >50% scar transmurality). The primary endpoint of RR (expressed as percentage ESV change) and secondary composite endpoint of HF hospitalizations, LVAD/heart transplant, or cardiovascular death were compared across categories.
RESULTS: LVC proximity to LMA was associated with a progressive increase in RR (percentage ESV change: concordant -47.0 ± 5.9%, adjacent -31.4 ± 3.1%, discordant +0.4 ± 3.7%), while proximity to scar was associated with sharply decreasing RR (concordant +10.7 ± 12.9%, adjacent +0.3 ± 5.3%, discordant -31.3 ± 4.4%, no scar -35.4 ± 4.8%). 4 integrated classes of LVC position demonstrated a significant positive RR gradient the more optimal the category (class I -47.0 ± 5.9%, class II -34.9 ± 2.8%, class III -5.5 ± 4.3%, class IV + 3.4 ± 5.2%). Freedom from composite secondary endpoint of HF hospitalization, LVAD/heart transplant, or cardiovascular death confirmed these trends demonstrating significant differences across both integrated as well as individual LMA and scar categories.
CONCLUSIONS: Integrated CMR-determined LVC position relative to LMA and scar stratifies response to CRT.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between use of adaptive pacing on clinical and economic outcomes of CRT recipients in a real-world analysis.
BACKGROUND: The AdaptivCRTTM algorithm was shown in prior subgroup analyses of prospective trials to achieve clinical benefits, but a large prospective trial showed nonsignificant changes in the endpoint of mortality or heart failure hospitalizations.
METHODS: CRT-implanted patients from the Optum Clinformatics® database with ≥90 days of follow-up were included. Remote monitoring data was used to classify patients based on CRT setting - adaptive biventricular and left ventricular pacing (aCRT) vs. standard biventricular pacing (Standard CRT). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences between groups. Mortality, 30-day readmissions, healthcare utilization, and payer and patient costs were evaluated post-implantation.
RESULTS: This study included 2,412 aCRT and 1,638 Standard CRT patients (mean follow-up: 2.4 ± 1.4 years), with balanced baseline characteristics after adjustment. The aCRT group was associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI):0.80, 0.96]), fewer all-cause 30-day readmissions (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 0.87 [CI:0.81, 0.94]), and fewer all-cause and HF-related inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department (ED) visits. The aCRT cohort was also associated with lower all-cause outpatient payer-paid amounts and lower all-cause and HF-related inpatient and ED patient-paid amounts.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of a large real-world cohort, use of an adaptive CRT algorithm was associated with lower mortality, reduced healthcare resource utilization, and lower payer and patient costs.
BACKGROUND: While cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves quality of life and clinical outcomes for certain heart failure patients, some patients do not respond to this therapy. Adaptive CRT algorithms (aCRT), such as AdaptivCRTTM, have been developed with the goal of improving effectiveness of CRT, and consequently, clinical and economic outcomes. This research study used a large database of administrative claims data - which contains information on patient demographics, diagnoses, healthcare services received, mortality, and cost data - to compare clinical and economic outcomes between CRT patients with the aCRT algorithm turned on (aCRT group) and CRT patients with the aCRT algorithm turned off (standard CRT group). Statistical methods were used to adjust for baseline differences between the aCRT group and standard CRT groups. Ultimately, the aCRT group was found to have a lower risk of all-cause mortality, fewer all-cause 30-day readmissions, fewer hospital visits (including inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department visits), and lower costs to payers and patients for specific types of costs.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).
RESULTS: Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with challenges such as elevated capture thresholds, diaphragmatic stimulation, and lead instability.
OBJECTIVE: Assess the chronic safety and efficacy of the quadripolar CRT-D device system with the Quartet 1458Q Left Ventricular (LV) lead in a CRT-indicated population followed for 5 years and evaluate all-cause mortality and impact of baseline characteristics on survival through 5 years.
METHODS: Patients indicated for a CRT-D system were followed every 6 months post-implant for 5 years and assessed device performance and adverse events at each visit. The three primary endpoints were freedom from quadripolar CRT-D system-related complications through 5 years, freedom from Quartet 1458Q LV lead-related complications through 5 years, and the mean programmed pacing capture threshold at 5 years.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 1,970 subjects at 71 sites. The quadripolar CRT-D system was successfully implanted in 97.2% of subjects. Freedom from quadripolar CRT-D device system-related complications through 5 years was 89.7% and freedom from Quartet 1458Q LV lead-related complications through 5 years was 95.7%. 3.49 % of subjects had LV lead-related complications and an overall LV lead complication rate was 0.0122 events per subject-year. A mean LV pacing capture threshold was 1.52 ± 1.01 V at 5 years. The 5-year survival rate was 67.4%.
CONCLUSIONS: The quadripolar CRT-D system with the Quartet 1458Q LV lead exhibited low rates of complications and stable electrical performance through 5 years of follow-up and suggested a higher 5-year survival rate compared to traditional CRT systems.

In patients with a reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function (ejection fraction < 35%) and a left bundle branch block with a QRS duration > 130 ms, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can contribute to an improvement in the quality of life and a reduction in mortality. The resynchronization is mostly achieved by pacing via an epicardial LV lead in the coronary sinus; however, this approach is often limited by the patient\'s venous anatomy and an increase in the stimulation threshold over time. In addition, up to 30% of patients do not respond to the intervention. New treatment approaches involve direct stimulation of the conduction system by pacing of the bundle of His or left bundle branch. This enables a more physiological propagation of the stimulus. Pacing of the left bundle branch is achieved by advancing the lead into the right ventricle and screwing it deep into the interventricular septum. Due to the relatively large target area of the left bundle branch the success rate is very high (currently > 90%). Observational studies have shown a greater reduction in the QRS duration, a more pronounced improvement in systolic function and a lower hospitalization rate for heart failure associated with conduction system pacing compared to CRT using a coronary sinus lead. These findings have been confirmed in small randomized trials. Therefore, the use of left bundle branch pacing should be considered not only as a bail out in the case of failed resynchronization using coronary sinus lead placement but increasingly also as an initial pacing strategy. The results of the first large randomized trials are expected to be released in late 2024.
UNASSIGNED: Bei Patienten mit einer reduzierten systolischen linksventrikulären (LV-)Funktion (Ejektionsfraktion < 35 %) und einem Linksschenkelblock (Breite des QRS-Komplexes > 130 ms) kann eine kardiale Resynchronisationstherapie (CRT) zur Verbesserung der Leistungsfähigkeit und zur Senkung der Mortalität beitragen. Die Resynchronisation wird zumeist durch Stimulation über eine epikardiale LV-Sonde im Koronarsinus erreicht. Diese Therapie ist jedoch häufig durch Variationen des Venensystems des Patienten und durch einen Anstieg der Reizschwelle im Laufe der Zeit limitiert. Zudem sprechen bis zu 30 % der Patienten nicht auf die Intervention an. Neue Therapieansätze beinhalten die direkte Stimulation des Erregungsleitungssystems durch His-Bündel- oder Linksschenkelstimulation. Hierdurch kann eine physiologischere Erregungsausbreitung erzielt werden. Die Linksschenkelstimulation wird durch das Einschrauben einer Sonde in das interventrikuläre Septum vom rechten Ventrikel aus erreicht. Durch das relativ große Zielgebiet des linken Tawara-Schenkels ist die Erfolgsrate sehr hoch (aktuell > 90 %). Beobachtungsstudien zeigen eine im Vergleich zur Resynchronisation mithilfe einer Koronarsinussonde stärkere Reduktion der QRS-Komplex-Breite, eine ausgeprägtere Verbesserung der systolischen Funktion und eine geringere Hospitalisierungsrate der Patienten mit einer Herzinsuffizienz. Ähnliche Ergebnisse finden sich in kleinen randomisierten Studien. Insbesondere die Anwendung der Linksschenkelstimulation wird nicht nur als Ersatz nach dem Scheitern der Resynchronisation mithilfe der Koronarsinussonde, sondern zunehmend auch als initiale Strategie unterstützt. Die Ergebnisse der ersten größeren randomisierten Studien sind ab Ende 2024 zu erwarten.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the stability of the Medtronic Attain Stability Quad (ASQ), a novel quadripolar active fixation left ventricular (LV) lead with a side helix, to that of conventional quadripolar leads with passive fixation (non-ASQ) and evaluated their LV lead performance.Methods and Results: In all, 183 consecutive patients (69 ASQ, 114 non-ASQ) who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) between January 2018 and June 2021 were enrolled. Complications, including elevated pacing capture threshold (PCT) levels, phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS), and LV lead dislodgement, were analyzed during the postimplantation period until the first outpatient visit after discharge. The frequency of LV lead-related complications was significantly lower in the ASQ than non-ASQ group (14% vs. 30%, respectively; P=0.019). Specifically, LV lead dislodgement occurred only in the non-ASQ group, and elevated PCT levels were significantly lower in the ASQ group (7% vs. 23%; P=0.007). Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed a significantly lower incidence of LV lead-related complications in the ASQ group (log-rank P=0.005). Cox multivariable regression analysis showed a significant reduction in lead-related complications associated with ASQ (hazard ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.83; P=0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: The ASQ group exhibited fewer LV lead-related complications requiring reintervention and setting changes than the non-ASQ group. Thus, the ASQ may be a favorable choice for CRT device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) represents an effective heart failure treatment, associated with reduction in mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. This Italian survey aimed to address relevant CRT issues.
METHODS: An online survey was administered to AIAC members.
RESULTS: One hundred and five electrophysiologists participated, with a median of 40 (23-70) CRT implantations/year (33% in high-volume centres). Forty-five percent of respondents (especially working in high-volume centres) reported an increase in CRT implantations in the last 2 years, in 16% a decrease, and in 38% CRT remained stable. Seventy-five percent of respondents implanted CRT only in patients with European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) class I indications. All operators collected ECG and echocardiography before implantation. Eighty-five percent of respondents selected coronary sinus target vein empirically, whereas 10% used mechanical and/or electrical delay techniques. Physicians working in high-volume centres reported a lower failure rate compared with others (16 vs. 34%; P = 0.03). If the coronary sinus lead could not be positioned in the target branch, 80% placed it in another vein, whereas 16% opted for a surgical approach or for conduction system pacing (CSP). Eighty percent accomplished CRT optimization in all patients, 17% only in nonresponders. Regarding anticoagulation, high agreement with EHRA guidelines emerged.
CONCLUSIONS: CRT represents a valid therapeutic option in heart failure treatment. Nowadays, CRT implantations remain stable and are mainly performed in patients with class I indications. ECG remains the preferred tool for patient selection, whereas imaging is increasingly used to determine the left pacing target area. In most patients, the left ventricular lead can be successfully positioned in the target vein, but in some cases, the result can be unsatisfactory; however, the decision to explore alternative resynchronization approaches is rarely pursued.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular death with type 2 diabetes; however, their effect on arrhythmias is unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of empagliflozin on ventricular arrhythmias in patients with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: A total of 150 patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (ICD/CRT-D) were randomized to once-daily empagliflozin or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the number of ventricular arrhythmias from the 24 weeks before to the 24 weeks during treatment. Secondary endpoints included the change in the number of appropriate device discharges and other values.
RESULTS: In the empagliflozin group, the number of ventricular arrhythmias recorded by ICD/CRT-D decreased by 1.69 during treatment compared to before treatment, while in the placebo group, the number increased by 1.79. The coefficient for the between-group difference was - 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.29 to - 0.86; P < 0.001). The change in the number of appropriate device discharges during and before treatment was 0.06 in the empagliflozin group and 0.27 in the placebo group, with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.204). Empagliflozin was associated with an increase in blood ketones and hematocrit and a decrease in blood brain natriuretic peptide and body weight.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes treated with ICD/CRT-D, empagliflozin reduces the number of ventricular arrhythmias compared with placebo. Trial registration jRCTs031180120.