BACKGROUND: To maximize the hemodynamic benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), echocardiographic AV interval optimization is routinely performed, complemented by VV interval optimization especially in non-responders. Programming of the basic pacing rate, however, is largely empirical in these patients. Therefore, the present study aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of basic pacing rate on hemodynamic parameters in CRT patients with sinus bradycardia. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 70 consecutive patients with moderate to severe heart failure, LV ejection fraction <or=35%, left bundle branch block or a QRS duration >120 ms combined with echocardiographic evidence of ventricular dyssynchrony. All patients were on optimal heart failure medication, with CRT-ICD devices implanted at least 6 months before inclusion into the study. All patients were in sinus rhythm with a spontaneous heart rate <40 bpm. In all patients, cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume (SV) were determined using electrical velocimetry (EV) (Aesculon, Osypka Medical, Berlin, Germany). EV provides a new algorithm to calculate CO based on variations in thoracic electrical bioimpedance, which has been recently validated. Hemodynamic measurements were performed at four different pacing rates ranging from 40 to 70 bpm. A stepwise increase in CO was encountered with increasing heart rates, reaching statistical significance when comparing 70 with 40 bpm. SV remained unchanged throughout all pacing rates. CONCLUSIONS: In the range between 40 and 70 bpm, an increase in basic pacing rate enhances CO without reducing SV. According to this pilot study, a basic pacing rate between 60 and 70 bpm would appear reasonable.
BACKGROUND: To maximize the hemodynamic benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), echocardiographic AV interval optimization is routinely performed, complemented by VV interval optimization especially in non-responders. Programming of the basic pacing rate, however, is largely empirical in these patients. Therefore, the present study aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of basic pacing rate on hemodynamic parameters in CRT patients with sinus bradycardia. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 70 consecutive patients with moderate to severe heart failure, LV ejection fraction <or=35%, left bundle branch block or a QRS duration >120 ms combined with echocardiographic evidence of ventricular dyssynchrony. All patients were on optimal heart failure medication, with CRT-ICD devices implanted at least 6 months before inclusion into the study. All patients were in sinus rhythm with a spontaneous heart rate <40 bpm. In all patients, cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume (SV) were determined using electrical velocimetry (EV) (Aesculon, Osypka Medical, Berlin, Germany). EV provides a new algorithm to calculate CO based on variations in thoracic electrical bioimpedance, which has been recently validated. Hemodynamic measurements were performed at four different pacing rates ranging from 40 to 70 bpm. A stepwise increase in CO was encountered with increasing heart rates, reaching statistical significance when comparing 70 with 40 bpm. SV remained unchanged throughout all pacing rates. CONCLUSIONS: In the range between 40 and 70 bpm, an increase in basic pacing rate enhances CO without reducing SV. According to this pilot study, a basic pacing rate between 60 and 70 bpm would appear reasonable.
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: Alain Bernheim; Peter Ammann; Christian Sticherling; Peter Burger; Beat Schaer; Hans Peter Brunner-La Rocca; Jens Eckstein; Stephanie Kiencke; Christoph Kaiser; Andre Linka; Peter Buser; Matthias Pfisterer; Stefan Osswald Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-05-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C Schmidt; G Theilmeier; H Van Aken; P Korsmeier; S P Wirtz; E Berendes; A Hoffmeier; A Meissner Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2005-09-09 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: P Lechat; J S Hulot; S Escolano; A Mallet; A Leizorovicz; M Werhlen-Grandjean; G Pochmalicki; H Dargie Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-03-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Auricchio; C Stellbrink; M Block; S Sack; J Vogt; P Bakker; H Klein; A Kramer; J Ding; R Salo; B Tockman; T Pochet; J Spinelli Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-06-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: S Cazeau; C Leclercq; T Lavergne; S Walker; C Varma; C Linde; S Garrigue; L Kappenberger; G A Haywood; M Santini; C Bailleul; J C Daubert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-03-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Frederik Trinkmann; Manuel Berger; Ursula Hoffmann; Martin Borggrefe; Jens J Kaden; Joachim Saur Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Frederik Trinkmann; Manuel Berger; Christina Doesch; Theano Papavassiliu; Stefan O Schoenberg; Martin Borggrefe; Jens J Kaden; Joachim Saur Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Thomas Schau; Walter Koglek; Josef Brandl; Martin Seifert; Jürgen Meyhöfer; Michael Neuss; Georg Grimm; Robert Bitschnau; Christian Butter Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2012-09-23 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Adam Ali Ghotbi; Mikael Sander; Lars Køber; Berit Th Philbert; Finn Gustafsson; Christoffer Hagemann; Andreas Kjær; Peter K Jacobsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amilia Aminuddin; Isabella Tan; Mark Butlin; Alberto P Avolio; Hosen Kiat; Edward Barin; Nor Anita Megat Mohd Nordin; Kalaivani Chellappan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 3.240