학술논문

Combination of the best pacing configuration and atrioventricular and interventricular delays optimization in cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Document Type
Article
Source
Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology. Apr2018, Vol. 41 Issue 4, p362-367. 6p.
Subject
*HEART diseases
*THERAPEUTICS
*ATRIOVENTRICULAR node
*CARDIAC output
*CARDIAC pacing
*ELECTRODES
*LEFT heart ventricle
*HEART conduction system
*PROBABILITY theory
*DESCRIPTIVE statistics
Language
ISSN
0147-8389
Abstract
Abstract: Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization can be pursued by left ventricular pacing vector selection and atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delays optimization. The combination of these methods and its comparison with multipoint pacing (MPP) is scarcely studied. Methods: Using noninvasive cardiac output (CO) measurement, the best of five left ventricular pacing vectors was determined, then AV and VV delays optimization was applied on top of the best vector. Response to the optimization protocol was defined as a >5% CO increase compared to the standard biventricular configuration. Results: Twenty‐two patients (18 men, age 71 ± 9 years) were included. Standard biventricular configuration increased CO compared to baseline (4.65 ± 1.55 L/min vs 4.27 ± 1.53 L/min, respectively, P = 0.02). The best quadripolar configuration increased CO to 4.85 ± 1.67 L/min (P = 0.03 compared to the standard biventricular configuration). AV then VV delay optimization both provided additional benefit (final CO 5.56 ± 2.03 L/min, P = 0.001 compared to the best quadripolar configuration). Fifteen (68%) patients responded to the optimization protocol. Anatomical MPP (based on maximal anatomical separation between electrodes) and electrical MPP (based on maximal electrical activation difference between electrodes) were evaluated in 16 patients and yielded a CO similar to that of the optimization procedure. Conclusions: The combination of choosing the best quadripolar pacing configuration and optimizing atrioventricular and interventricular delays resulted in an improvement of cardiac output compared to standard biventricular stimulation in 68% of patients. The final cardiac output was comparable to multipoint pacing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]