BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular (AV) interval optimization is often deemed too time-consuming in dual-chamber pacemaker patients with maintained LV function. Thus the majority of patients are left at their default AV interval. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the magnitude of hemodynamic improvement following AV interval optimization in chronically paced dual chamber pacemaker patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pressure volume catheter was placed in the left ventricle of 19 patients with chronic dual chamber pacing and an ejection fraction >45 % undergoing elective coronary angiography. AV interval was varied in 10 ms steps from 80 to 300 ms, and pressure volume loops were recorded during breath hold. RESULTS: The average optimal AV interval was 152 ± 39 ms compared to 155 ± 8 ms for the average default AV interval (range 100-240 ms). The average improvement in stroke work following AV interval optimization was 935 ± 760 mmHg/ml (range 0-2,908; p < 0.001), which translates into an average improvement of 14 ± 9 % (range 0-28). A 10 ms variation of the AV interval changes the average stroke work by 207 ± 162 mmHg/ml. AV interval optimization also leads to improved systolic dyssynchrony indices (17.7 ± 7.0 vs. 19.4 ± 7.1 %; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The overall hemodynamic effect of AV interval optimization in patients with maintained LV function is in the same range as for patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy for several parameters. The positive effect of AV interval optimization also applies to patients who have been chronically paced for years.
BACKGROUND:Atrioventricular (AV) interval optimization is often deemed too time-consuming in dual-chamber pacemaker patients with maintained LV function. Thus the majority of patients are left at their default AV interval. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the magnitude of hemodynamic improvement following AV interval optimization in chronically paced dual chamber pacemaker patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pressure volume catheter was placed in the left ventricle of 19 patients with chronic dual chamber pacing and an ejection fraction >45 % undergoing elective coronary angiography. AV interval was varied in 10 ms steps from 80 to 300 ms, and pressure volume loops were recorded during breath hold. RESULTS: The average optimal AV interval was 152 ± 39 ms compared to 155 ± 8 ms for the average default AV interval (range 100-240 ms). The average improvement in stroke work following AV interval optimization was 935 ± 760 mmHg/ml (range 0-2,908; p < 0.001), which translates into an average improvement of 14 ± 9 % (range 0-28). A 10 ms variation of the AV interval changes the average stroke work by 207 ± 162 mmHg/ml. AV interval optimization also leads to improved systolic dyssynchrony indices (17.7 ± 7.0 vs. 19.4 ± 7.1 %; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The overall hemodynamic effect of AV interval optimization in patients with maintained LV function is in the same range as for patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy for several parameters. The positive effect of AV interval optimization also applies to patients who have been chronically paced for years.
Authors: Panos E Vardas; Angelo Auricchio; Jean-Jacques Blanc; Jean-Claude Daubert; Helmut Drexler; Hugo Ector; Maurizio Gasparini; Cecilia Linde; Francisco Bello Morgado; Ali Oto; Richard Sutton; Maria Trusz-Gluza Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-08-28 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Bilel Mokrani; Stephane Lafitte; Antoine Deplagne; Sylvain Ploux; Julien Laborderie; Patricia Reant; Pierre Dos Santos; Raymond Roudaut; Pierre Jais; Michel Haissaguerre; Jacques Clementy; Pierre Bordachar Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Ioannis H Styliadis; Nikolaos I Gouzoumas; Haralambos I Karvounis; Christodoulos E Papadopoulos; Georgios K Efthimiadis; Mihail Karamouzis; Georgios E Parharidis; Georgios E Louridas Journal: Europace Date: 2005-07-18 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: N Toda; T Ishikawa; N Nozawa; I Kobayashi; H Ochiai; K Miyamoto; S Sumita; K Kimura; S Umemura Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Walter J Paulus; Carsten Tschöpe; John E Sanderson; Cesare Rusconi; Frank A Flachskampf; Frank E Rademakers; Paolo Marino; Otto A Smiseth; Gilles De Keulenaer; Adelino F Leite-Moreira; Attila Borbély; István Edes; Martin Louis Handoko; Stephane Heymans; Natalia Pezzali; Burkert Pieske; Kenneth Dickstein; Alan G Fraser; Dirk L Brutsaert Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-04-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Marcel Weber; Eva Brüggemann; Robert Schueler; Diana Momcilovic; Jan-Malte Sinning; Alexander Ghanem; Nikos Werner; Eberhard Grube; Wolfgang Schiller; Fritz Mellert; Armin Welz; Georg Nickenig; Christoph Hammerstingl Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Wolfram C Poller; Henryk Dreger; Marius Schwerg; Hansjürgen Bondke; Christoph Melzer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 5.460