Bifocal left ventricular stimulation or the optimal left ventricular stimulation site in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a pressure–volume loop study

Aims Several implantation strategies have been proposed to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), including bifocal left ventricular (LV) stimulation and optimal single-LV lead placement. This study aimed to compare these two strategies during invasive pressure–volume (PV) loop measurements. Methods and results Thirty-three patients eligible for CRT were included [21 (64%) men, 20 (61%) ischaemic aetiology, QRS 155 ± 23 ms], and underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and invasive PV loop measurements. Left ventricular pump function was characterized by stroke work (SW) and d P /d t max (5.1 ± 3.4 L mmHg and 856 ± 190 mmHg/s, respectively). Haemodynamic response was assessed during stimulation at single-LV sites and during bifocal LV [anterolateral and posterolateral (PL)] stimulation. Response during bifocal LV stimulation was not significantly higher compared with standard PL pacing (SW; β = 9.4 ± 5.4, P = 0.080; d P /d t max, β = 0.2 ± 1.9, P = 0.922). However, mean pump function improvement was significantly higher during stimulation at the optimal LV site compared with bifocal LV stimulation (SW; β = 12.7 ± 5.1, P = 0.012; d P /d t max, β = 3.3 ± 1.2, P = 0.020). Myocardial tissue properties were assessed by CMR tissue tagging. Mechanical activation at the optimal LV site was significantly more delayed compared with the worst LV site (431 ± 93 ms vs. 326 ± 127 ms; P = 0.004). Conclusion Stimulation at the optimal LV site showed a significantly higher pump function improvement compared with bifocal LV stimulation. Mechanical activation at the optimal LV site was significantly more delayed compared with the non-optimal LV site. In general, these results suggest that implantation of a second LV lead yields no additional benefit over implantation of one optimally placed LV lead. However, a bifocal approach might be beneficial in the individual patient.