Literature DB >> 20735713

Site-specific differences in latency intervals during biventricular pacing: impact on paced QRS morphology and echo-optimized V-V interval.

Bengt Herweg1, Rias Ali, Arzu Ilercil, Chris Madramootoo, Ray Cutro, Mark W Weston, S Serge Barold.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in latency intervals during right ventricular (RV) pacing and left ventricular (LV) pacing from the (postero-)lateral cardiac vein in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients and their relationship to echo-optimized interventricular (V-V) intervals and paced QRS morphology.
METHODS: We recorded digital 12-lead electrocardiograms in 40 CRT patients during RV, LV, and biventricular pacing at three output settings. Stimulus-to-earliest QRS deflection (latency) intervals were measured in all leads. Echocardiographic atrioventricular (AV) and V-V optimization was performed using aortic velocity time integrals.
RESULTS: Latency intervals were longer during LV (34 ± 17, 29 ± 15, 28 ± 15 ms) versus RV apical pacing (17 ± 8, 15 ± 8, 13 ± 7 ms) for threshold, threshold ×3, and maximal output, respectively (P < 0.001), and shortened with increased stimulus strength (P < 0.05). The echo-optimized V-V interval was 58 ± 31 ms in five of 40 (12%) patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms compared to 29 ± 20 ms in 35 patients with LV latency < 40 ms (P < 0.01). During simultaneous biventricular pacing, four of five (80%) patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms exhibited a left bundle branch block (LBBB) pattern in lead V(1) compared to three of 35 (9%) patients with LV latency < 40 ms (P < 0.01). After optimization, all five patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms registered a dominant R wave in lead V(1) .
CONCLUSIONS: LV pacing from the lateral cardiac vein is associated with longer latency intervals than endocardial RV pacing. LV latency causes delayed LV activation and requires V-V interval adjustment to improve hemodynamic response to CRT. Patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms most often display an LBBB pattern in lead V(1) during simultaneous biventricular pacing, but a right bundle branch block after V-V interval optimization. ©2010, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20735713     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02882.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  5 in total

Review 1.  ECG Patterns In Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Authors:  Antonius van Stipdonk; Sofieke Wijers; Mathias Meine; Kevin Vernooy
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2015-04-30

2.  Incidence, predictors, and impact on outcome of increased left ventricular latency in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Antonio D'Onofrio; Salvatore Ivan Caico; Assunta Iuliano; Paolo Pieragnoli; Valter Bianchi; Daniela Orsida; Antonio Pani; Mario Pasqualini; Francesca Amadori; Ludovico Vasquez; Antonello Talarico; Chiara Minoia; Roberto Ospizio; Greta Merlotti; Maurizio Malacrida; Giuseppe Stabile
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  The postimplantation electrocardiogram predicts clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Edward Coverstone; Justin Sheehy; Robert E Kleiger; Timothy W Smith
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 1.976

Review 4.  Ventricular pacing - Electromechanical consequences and valvular function.

Authors:  Elisa Ebrille; Christopher V DeSimone; Vaibhav R Vaidya; Anwar A Chahal; Vuyisile T Nkomo; Samuel J Asirvatham
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2016-03-04

5.  Electrocardiographic patterns in biventricular pacing delivered by second-generation cardiac resynchronization devices.

Authors:  Amirfarjam Fazelifar; Fatemeh Jorfi; Majid Haghjoo
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2017-11-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.