INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure (HF), left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction <or= 35% and a QRS on the surface electrocardiogram of >or=130 msec. Device optimization is often performed, adjusting the timing of RV and LV stimulation to produce a pacing sequence that yields the best global cardiac performance. However, no standard guidelines exist for optimization and many invasive and non-invasive techniques have been employed with mixed results. The aim of the present study was to determine whether there are any clinical predictors of the optimal V-V settings in patients implanted with CRT devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively evaluated 47 consecutive patients with HF who were referred to our device optimization clinic. The mean patient age was 64.9 +/- 12.7 years. Patients were in both sinus rhythm (83%) and atrial fibrillation. Prior to device implant, 51% of patients had left bundle branch block (LBBB), 17% had intra-ventricular conduction delay (IVCD) and 21% were RV paced. Sixty-two percent were male, the mean QRS duration was 152 +/- 29 ms, mean LVEF 26 +/- 8% and 60% had a non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Overall, 82% of patients required sequential pacing with 69% requiring LV pre-excitation to produce the best global cardiac function as determined by aortic velocity time integrals (VTI). In our cohort, none of the clinical characteristics evaluated, including etiology of the cardiomyopathy, QRS duration, LVEF, pre-implant rhythm or AV delay were predictive of an optimal simultaneous or sequential V-V setting. CONCLUSIONS: None of the clinical variables tested in our analysis predicted optimal RV-LV settings. Our results suggest that individual optimization and programming of V-V settings is necessary. The inability to predict optimal settings likely reflects the unique characteristics of each patient and supports the need for individualized programming of each device.
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure (HF), left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction <or= 35% and a QRS on the surface electrocardiogram of >or=130 msec. Device optimization is often performed, adjusting the timing of RV and LV stimulation to produce a pacing sequence that yields the best global cardiac performance. However, no standard guidelines exist for optimization and many invasive and non-invasive techniques have been employed with mixed results. The aim of the present study was to determine whether there are any clinical predictors of the optimal V-V settings in patients implanted with CRT devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively evaluated 47 consecutive patients with HF who were referred to our device optimization clinic. The mean patient age was 64.9 +/- 12.7 years. Patients were in both sinus rhythm (83%) and atrial fibrillation. Prior to device implant, 51% of patients had left bundle branch block (LBBB), 17% had intra-ventricular conduction delay (IVCD) and 21% were RV paced. Sixty-two percent were male, the mean QRS duration was 152 +/- 29 ms, mean LVEF 26 +/- 8% and 60% had a non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Overall, 82% of patients required sequential pacing with 69% requiring LV pre-excitation to produce the best global cardiac function as determined by aortic velocity time integrals (VTI). In our cohort, none of the clinical characteristics evaluated, including etiology of the cardiomyopathy, QRS duration, LVEF, pre-implant rhythm or AV delay were predictive of an optimal simultaneous or sequential V-V setting. CONCLUSIONS: None of the clinical variables tested in our analysis predicted optimal RV-LV settings. Our results suggest that individual optimization and programming of V-V settings is necessary. The inability to predict optimal settings likely reflects the unique characteristics of each patient and supports the need for individualized programming of each device.
Authors: Sylvain Reuter; Stephane Garrigue; S Serge Barold; Pierre Jais; Meleze Hocini; Michel Haissaguerre; Jacques Clementy Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: William T Abraham; Westby G Fisher; Andrew L Smith; David B Delurgio; Angel R Leon; Evan Loh; Dusan Z Kocovic; Milton Packer; Alfredo L Clavell; David L Hayes; Myrvin Ellestad; Robin J Trupp; Jackie Underwood; Faith Pickering; Cindy Truex; Peggy McAtee; John Messenger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Claudia Ypenburg; Martin J Schalij; Gabe B Bleeker; Paul Steendijk; Eric Boersma; Petra Dibbets-Schneider; Marcel P M Stokkel; Ernst E van der Wall; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Marc Vanderheyden; Tine De Backer; Maximo Rivero-Ayerza; Peter Geelen; Jozef Bartunek; Sofie Verstreken; Mark De Zutter; Marc Goethals Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Giuseppe Boriani; Cord Paul Müller; Karl Heinz Seidl; Rainer Grove; Jürgen Vogt; Wilfried Danschel; Andreas Schuchert; Pierre Djiane; Mauro Biffi; Thorsten Becker; Christophe Bailleul; Hans Joachim Trappe Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Pierre Bordachar; Stephane Lafitte; Sylvain Reuter; Prashanthan Sanders; Pierre Jaïs; Michel Haïssaguerre; Raymond Roudaut; Stephane Garrigue; Jacques Clementy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-12-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew Richardson; Nick Freemantle; Melanie J Calvert; John G F Cleland; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-05-31 Impact factor: 29.983