AIMS: Echocardiographic optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is costly, time-consuming, and requires skill and expertise so is usually undertaken only in 'non-responder' patients. An algorithm in St Jude Medical CRT devices (QuickOpt) claims to optimize these settings automatically. The aim of this study was to compare the two optimization techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: Optimization of AV and VV intervals was performed a month after CRT device implantation in 26 patients with heart failure, first by echocardiography then by QuickOpt. The left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) velocity-time integral (VTI) was measured after optimization by each method. Agreement between the optimization methods was assessed by the Bland-Altman analysis and correlation by Pearson's correlation coefficient. There was good correlation between the LVOT VTI following optimization by both methods (R2 = 0.77, P < 0.001). However, agreement between the two methods was poor, with 15 of 26 and 10 of 26 patients having a >20 ms difference in the optimal AV and VV interval values, respectively. Left ventricular outflow tract VTI was significantly better (22 of 26 patients; P < 0.001) in patients optimized by echocardiography than by QuickOpt. CONCLUSION: There is a poor agreement in optimal AV and VV intervals determined by echocardiography and QuickOpt, with echocardiographic optimization giving a superior haemodynamic outcome.
AIMS: Echocardiographic optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is costly, time-consuming, and requires skill and expertise so is usually undertaken only in 'non-responder' patients. An algorithm in St Jude Medical CRT devices (QuickOpt) claims to optimize these settings automatically. The aim of this study was to compare the two optimization techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: Optimization of AV and VV intervals was performed a month after CRT device implantation in 26 patients with heart failure, first by echocardiography then by QuickOpt. The left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) velocity-time integral (VTI) was measured after optimization by each method. Agreement between the optimization methods was assessed by the Bland-Altman analysis and correlation by Pearson's correlation coefficient. There was good correlation between the LVOT VTI following optimization by both methods (R2 = 0.77, P < 0.001). However, agreement between the two methods was poor, with 15 of 26 and 10 of 26 patients having a >20 ms difference in the optimal AV and VV interval values, respectively. Left ventricular outflow tract VTI was significantly better (22 of 26 patients; P < 0.001) in patients optimized by echocardiography than by QuickOpt. CONCLUSION: There is a poor agreement in optimal AV and VV intervals determined by echocardiography and QuickOpt, with echocardiographic optimization giving a superior haemodynamic outcome.
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Scott Wehrenberg; Kevin P Jackson; David L Hayes; Niraj Varma; Brian D Powell; John D Day; Camille G Frazier-Mills; Kenneth M Stein; Paul W Jones; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 1.900