Literature DB >> 19463519

Left ventricular conduction delays and relation to QRS configuration in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

Niraj Varma1.   

Abstract

Left ventricular activation delay (LVAT) >100 ms may determine response to cardiac resynchronization therapy, but its prevalence and relation to QRS configuration are unknown. QRS duration and LVAT in control subjects (n = 30) were compared with those in patients with heart failure (HF; LV ejection fraction 23 +/- 8%, n = 120) with a QRS duration <120 ms (NQRS(HF), n = 35) or > or = 120 ms (left bundle branch block [LBBB(HF)], n = 54; right bundle branch block [RBBB(HF)], n = 31). LVAT was estimated by interval from QRS onset to basal inferolateral LV depolarization. In controls, QRS duration was 82 +/- 13 ms and LVAT was 55 +/- 18 ms. LVAT was always <100 ms. In patients with NQRS(HF), QRS duration (104 +/- 10 ms) and LVAT (82 +/- 22 ms) were prolonged versus controls (p <0.001). LVAT exceeded 100 ms in 8 of 35 patients. In patients with LBBB(HF), QRS duration (161 +/- 29 ms) and LVAT (136 +/- 33 ms) were prolonged compared with controls and patients with NQRS(HF) (p <0.001). LVAT exceeded 100 ms in 47 of 54 patients. In patients with RBBB(HF), QRS duration did not differ from that in patients with LBBB(HF), but LVAT (100 +/- 24 ms) was shorter (p <0.001). In 17 of 31 patients with RBBB(HF) LVAT was <100 ms (82 +/- 12), similar to those with NQRS(HF) (p = NS), indicating no LV conduction delay. However, in 7 of 31, LVAT (135 +/- 13 ms) was similar to that in patients with LBBB(HF) (p = NS). LVAT correlation with QRS duration varied (control p = 0.004, NQRS(HF) p = 0.15, RBBB(HF) p = 0.01, LBBB(HF) p <0.001). In conclusion, LV conduction delays in patients with HF varied with QRS configuration and duration, exceeding 100 ms in only 23% of patients with narrow QRS configuration and 45% with RBBB(HF) compared with 87% with LBBB(HF). Fewer than 25% of patients with RBBB(HF) demonstrated delays equivalent to those in patients with LBBB(HF.) These variations may affect efficacy to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19463519     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.01.379

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  19 in total

Review 1.  Effect of QRS morphology on clinical event reduction with cardiac resynchronization therapy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ilke Sipahi; Josephine C Chou; Marshall Hyden; Douglas Y Rowland; Daniel I Simon; James C Fang
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.749

Review 2.  ICE Guided CRT: Is there Evidence of Reverse Remodeling?

Authors:  Antonio Rossillo; Angelo B Ramondo
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2016-02-29

Review 3.  Clinical, laboratory, and pacing predictors of CRT response.

Authors:  Jagdesh Kandala; Robert K Altman; Mi Young Park; Jagmeet P Singh
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 4.132

4.  Non-invasively quantified changes in left ventricular activation predict outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Daniel J Friedman; Kasper Emerek; Steen Møller Hansen; Christoffer Polcwiartek; Peter L Sørensen; Zak Loring; Joanne Sutter; Peter Søgaard; Joseph Kisslo; Claus Graff; Brett D Atwater
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-10-08

Review 5.  Optimizing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: an Update on New Insights and Advancements.

Authors:  Adam Grimaldi; Eiran Z Gorodeski; John Rickard
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2018-06

6.  Anodal stimulation: an underrecognized cause of nonresponders to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Khalin F Dendy; Brian D Powell; Yong-Mei Cha; Raul E Espinosa; Paul A Friedman; Robert F Rea; David L Hayes; Margaret M Redfield; Samuel J Asirvatham
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2011-05-01

7.  QRS narrowing is associated with reverse remodeling in patients with chronic right ventricular pacing upgraded to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  John Rickard; Alan Cheng; David Spragg; Daniel Cantillon; Mina K Chung; W H Wilson Tang; Bruce L Wilkoff; Niraj Varma
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 6.343

8.  Machine Learning of 12-Lead QRS Waveforms to Identify Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Patients With Differential Outcomes.

Authors:  Albert K Feeny; John Rickard; Kevin M Trulock; Divyang Patel; Saleem Toro; Laurie Ann Moennich; Niraj Varma; Mark J Niebauer; Eiran Z Gorodeski; Richard A Grimm; John Barnard; Anant Madabhushi; Mina K Chung
Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol       Date:  2020-06-14

9.  [Management of heart failure with His bundle pacing in right bundle branch block: case report].

Authors:  Jorge Gómez-Flores; Jovana Pérez-Báez; Guillermo Muñoz; Gabriela Bustillos-García; Alan García; Álvaro E Reyes-Quintero; Rosa M Ávila-Ocampo; Antonio Arias-Godínez; Manlio Márquez; Luis Colin-Lizalde; Moisés Levinstein-Jacinto; José L Morales-Velázquez; Santiago Nava
Journal:  Arch Cardiol Mex       Date:  2021

10.  Left ventricular paced activation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients with left bundle branch block and relationship to its electrical substrate.

Authors:  Brian J Wisnoskey; Niraj Varma
Journal:  Heart Rhythm O2       Date:  2020-05-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.