BACKGROUND:Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves morbidity and mortality in appropriately selected patients. Whether atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) pacing interval optimization confers further clinical improvement remains unclear. A variety of techniques are used to estimate optimum AV/VV intervals; however, the precision of their estimates and the ramifications of an imprecise estimate have not been characterized previously. METHODS AND RESULTS: An objective methodology for quantifying the precision of estimated optimum AV/VV intervals was developed, allowing physiologic effects to be distinguished from measurement variability. Optimization using multiple conventional techniques was conducted in individual sessions with 20 patients. Measures of stroke volume and dyssynchrony were obtained using impedance cardiography and echocardiographic methods, specifically, aortic velocity-time integral, mitral velocity-time integral, A-wave truncation, and septal-posterior wall motion delay. Echocardiographic methods yielded statistically insignificant data in the majority of patients (62%-82%). In contrast, impedance cardiography yielded statistically significant results in 84% and 75% of patients for AV and VV interval optimization, respectively. Individual cases demonstrated that accepting a plausible but statistically insignificant estimated optimum AV or VV interval can result in worse cardiac function than default values. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of statistical significance is critical for validating clinical optimization data in individual patients and for comparing competing optimization techniques. Accepting an estimated optimum without knowledge of its precision can result in worse cardiac function than default settings and a misinterpretation of observed changes over time. In this study, only impedance cardiography yielded statistically significant AV and VV interval optimization data in the majority of patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves morbidity and mortality in appropriately selected patients. Whether atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) pacing interval optimization confers further clinical improvement remains unclear. A variety of techniques are used to estimate optimum AV/VV intervals; however, the precision of their estimates and the ramifications of an imprecise estimate have not been characterized previously. METHODS AND RESULTS: An objective methodology for quantifying the precision of estimated optimum AV/VV intervals was developed, allowing physiologic effects to be distinguished from measurement variability. Optimization using multiple conventional techniques was conducted in individual sessions with 20 patients. Measures of stroke volume and dyssynchrony were obtained using impedance cardiography and echocardiographic methods, specifically, aortic velocity-time integral, mitral velocity-time integral, A-wave truncation, and septal-posterior wall motion delay. Echocardiographic methods yielded statistically insignificant data in the majority of patients (62%-82%). In contrast, impedance cardiography yielded statistically significant results in 84% and 75% of patients for AV and VV interval optimization, respectively. Individual cases demonstrated that accepting a plausible but statistically insignificant estimated optimum AV or VV interval can result in worse cardiac function than default values. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of statistical significance is critical for validating clinical optimization data in individual patients and for comparing competing optimization techniques. Accepting an estimated optimum without knowledge of its precision can result in worse cardiac function than default settings and a misinterpretation of observed changes over time. In this study, only impedance cardiography yielded statistically significant AV and VV interval optimization data in the majority of patients.
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: Kenneth M Stein; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Michael R Gold; Bernd Lemke; Ignacio Fernández Lozano; Suneet Mittal; Francis G Spinale; Jennifer E Van Eyk; Alan D Waggoner; Timothy E Meyer Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2009-10-10 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Christoph Melzer; Thomas Körber; Heinz Theres; Christoph A Nienaber; Gert Baumann; Bruno Ismer Journal: Europace Date: 2007-03-14 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Charlotte H Manisty; Ali Al-Hussaini; Beth Unsworth; Resham Baruah; Punam A Pabari; Jamil Mayet; Alun D Hughes; Zachary I Whinnett; Darrel P Francis Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2011-11-17
Authors: Punam A Pabari; Keith Willson; Berthold Stegemann; Irene E van Geldorp; Andreas Kyriacou; Michela Moraldo; Jamil Mayet; Alun D Hughes; Darrel P Francis Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Andreas Kyriacou; Matthew E Li Kam Wa; Punam A Pabari; Beth Unsworth; Resham Baruah; Keith Willson; Nicholas S Peters; Prapa Kanagaratnam; Alun D Hughes; Jamil Mayet; Zachary I Whinnett; Darrel P Francis Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Bozena Urbanek; Krzysztof Kaczmarek; Artur Klimczak; Jan Ruta; Michal Chudzik; Katarzyna Piestrzeniewicz; Pawel Ptaszynski; Jerzy Krzysztof Wranicz Journal: Indian J Med Res Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Zachary I Whinnett; Darrel P Francis; Arnaud Denis; Keith Willson; Patrizio Pascale; Irene van Geldorp; Maxime De Guillebon; Sylvain Ploux; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michel Haïssaguerre; Philippe Ritter; Pierre Bordachar Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 4.164