Literature DB >> 19853696

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic heart failure: Differential effect of optimizing interventricular pacing interval.

Nina Ajmone Marsan1, Gabe B Bleeker, Rutger J Van Bommel, C Jan Willem Borleffs, Jan Willem Borleffs, Matteo Bertini, Eduard R Holman, Ernst E van der Wall, Martin J Schalij, Jeroen J Bax.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether sequential biventricular pacing provides substantial benefits over conventional simultaneous stimulation remains unclear, particularly regarding the differences between ischemic and non-ischemic patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute effect of interventricular pacing interval (V-V) optimization on left ventricular (LV) systolic performance and dyssynchrony in ischemic versus non-ischemic patients.
METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy. Within 3 days after implantation, V-V was optimized by measuring (every 20-millisecond interval) LV systolic performance (LV outflow-tract velocity-time-integral, LVOT VTI) and LV dyssynchrony (using tissue Doppler imaging). Optimal pacing configuration was the one achieving maximal increase in LVOT VTI.
RESULTS: Optimized sequential pacing provided a significant improvement in LVOT VTI compared to simultaneous stimulation (from 138 +/- 42 to 163 +/- 38 mm, P < .001) and was associated with a significant reduction in LV dyssynchrony (from 33 +/- 31 to 19 +/- 24 milliseconds, P < .001). The increase in LVOT VTI and LV ejection fraction after implantation was greater in non-ischemic as compared to ischemic patients (P < .001). However, V-V optimization yielded a larger improvement in LV systolic performance in ischemic patients (P = .03). Consequently, the 2 groups showed comparable response after V-V optimization. A significant correlation was observed between LV scar tissue and optimal V-V interval (r = 0.58, P < .001), with a larger extent of scar related to a larger level of LV preactivation, probably reflecting slow intra-LV conduction.
CONCLUSIONS: Optimized sequential biventricular pacing further increased LV systolic performance as compared to simultaneous stimulation, particularly in ischemic patients where the presence of a large scar was correlated with a larger LV preactivation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19853696     DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.09.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  12 in total

Review 1.  Current role of echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Donato Mele; Matteo Bertini; Michele Malagù; Marianna Nardozza; Roberto Ferrari
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 4.214

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy-Emerging Therapeutic Approaches.

Authors:  Neal A Chatterjee; E Kevin Heist
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-03-06

4.  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

Review 5.  Profiling cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: responders, non-responders and those who cannot respond--the good, the bad and the ugly?

Authors:  Valerio Zacà; Sergio Mondillo; Rosaria Gaddi; Roberto Favilli
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-06-17       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy; the importance of evaluating cardiac metabolism.

Authors:  E E van der Wall; M J Schalij; A van der Laarse; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 2.357

7.  Response of mean arterial pressure to temporary biventricular pacing after chest closure during cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Benjamin J Rubinstein; Daniel Y Wang; Santos E Cabreriza; Bin Cheng; Linda Aponte-Patel; Alexandra Murata; Alexander Rusanov; Marc E Richmond; T Alexander Quinn; Henry M Spotnitz
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 5.209

8.  Coronary capillary blood flow in a rat model of congestive heart failure.

Authors:  Heather J Kagan; Varujan D Belekdanian; Jiqiu Chen; Peter Backeris; Nadjib Hammoudi; Irene C Turnbull; Kevin D Costa; Roger J Hajjar
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2017-10-19

9.  Evidence of scar tissue: contra-indication to cardiac resynchronization therapy?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; M J Schalij; H F Verwey; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 2.357

10.  CMR-determined scar volume: predictive for ventricular tachycardias?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; K Zeppenfeld; J J Bax; H M Siebelink; M J Schalij
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.