OBJECTIVE: To assess the haemodynamic effect of simultaneously adjusting atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delays. METHOD: 35 different combinations of AV and VV delay were tested by using digital photoplethysmography (Finometer) with repeated alternations to measure relative change in systolic blood pressure (SBP(rel)) in 15 patients with cardiac resynchronisation devices for heart failure. RESULTS: Changing AV delay had a larger effect than changing VV delay (range of SBP(rel) 21 v 4.2 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Each had a curvilinear effect. The curve of response to AV delay fitted extremely closely to a parabola (average R2 = 0.99, average residual variance 0.8 mm Hg2). The response to VV delay was significantly less curved (quadratic coefficient 67 v 1194 mm Hg/s2, p = 0.003) and therefore, although the residual variance was equally small (0.8 mm Hg2), the R2 value was 0.7. Reproducibility at two months was good, with the SD of the difference between two measurements of SBP(rel) being 2.5 mm Hg for AV delay (2% of mean systolic blood pressure) and 1.5 mm Hg for VV delay (1% of mean systolic blood pressure). CONCLUSIONS: Changing AV and VV delays results in a curvilinear acute blood pressure response. This shape fits very closely to a parabola, which may be valuable information in developing a streamlined clinical protocol. VV delay adjustment provides an additional, albeit smaller, haemodynamic benefit to AV optimisation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the haemodynamic effect of simultaneously adjusting atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delays. METHOD: 35 different combinations of AV and VV delay were tested by using digital photoplethysmography (Finometer) with repeated alternations to measure relative change in systolic blood pressure (SBP(rel)) in 15 patients with cardiac resynchronisation devices for heart failure. RESULTS: Changing AV delay had a larger effect than changing VV delay (range of SBP(rel) 21 v 4.2 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Each had a curvilinear effect. The curve of response to AV delay fitted extremely closely to a parabola (average R2 = 0.99, average residual variance 0.8 mm Hg2). The response to VV delay was significantly less curved (quadratic coefficient 67 v 1194 mm Hg/s2, p = 0.003) and therefore, although the residual variance was equally small (0.8 mm Hg2), the R2 value was 0.7. Reproducibility at two months was good, with the SD of the difference between two measurements of SBP(rel) being 2.5 mm Hg for AV delay (2% of mean systolic blood pressure) and 1.5 mm Hg for VV delay (1% of mean systolic blood pressure). CONCLUSIONS: Changing AV and VV delays results in a curvilinear acute blood pressure response. This shape fits very closely to a parabola, which may be valuable information in developing a streamlined clinical protocol. VV delay adjustment provides an additional, albeit smaller, haemodynamic benefit to AV optimisation.
Authors: Michael R Bristow; Leslie A Saxon; John Boehmer; Steven Krueger; David A Kass; Teresa De Marco; Peter Carson; Lorenzo DiCarlo; David DeMets; Bill G White; Dale W DeVries; Arthur M Feldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter Sogaard; Henrik Egeblad; Anders K Pedersen; Won Yong Kim; Bent O Kristensen; Peter S Hansen; Peter T Mortensen Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ole-A Breithardt; Christoph Stellbrink; Andreas Franke; Osman Balta; Björn H Diem; Patricia Bakker; Stefan Sack; Angelo Auricchio; Thierry Pochet; Rodney Salo Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Berry M van Gelder; Frank A Bracke; Albert Meijer; Lex J M Lakerveld; Nico H J Pijls Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Elena Sciaraffia; Matthew R Ginks; John Gustafsson; Andreas Karlsson; C Aldo Rinaldi; Carina Blomström Lundqvist Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: T Alexander Quinn; Santos E Cabreriza; Marc E Richmond; Alan D Weinberg; Jeffrey W Holmes; Henry M Spotnitz Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2009-10-23 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Matthias Reumann; Dima Farina; Raz Miri; Stephan Lurz; Brigitte Osswald; Olaf Dössel Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2007-07-27 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Nadine Ali; Daniel Keene; Ahran Arnold; Matthew Shun-Shin; Zachary I Whinnett; S M Afzal Sohaib Journal: Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev Date: 2018-06
Authors: Charlotte H Manisty; Ali Al-Hussaini; Beth Unsworth; Resham Baruah; Punam A Pabari; Jamil Mayet; Alun D Hughes; Zachary I Whinnett; Darrel P Francis Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2011-11-17
Authors: Punam A Pabari; Keith Willson; Berthold Stegemann; Irene E van Geldorp; Andreas Kyriacou; Michela Moraldo; Jamil Mayet; Alun D Hughes; Darrel P Francis Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.214