BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy may improve survival and quality of life in patients suffering from heart failure with left ventricular (LV) contraction dyssynchrony. While several studies have investigated electrical or mechanical determinants of synchronous contraction, few have focused on activation contraction coupling at a macroscopic level. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize LV electromechanical behavior and response to pacing in a heart failure model. METHODS: We analyzed data from 3D electroanatomic non-contact mapping and blood pool SPECT for 12 dogs with right ventricular (RV) tachycardia pacing-induced dilated cardiomyopathy. Surfaces generated by the two modalities were registered. Electrical signals were analyzed, and endocardial wall displacement curves were portrayed. RESULTS: Rapid pacing decreased the mean LV ejection fraction (LVEF) to 20.9 % and prolonged the QRS duration to 79 ± 10 ms (normal range: 40-50 ms). QRS duration remained unchanged with biventricular pacing (88.5 ms), while single site pacing further prolonged the QRS duration (113.3 ms for RV pacing and 111.6 ms for LV pacing). No trend was observed in LV systolic function. Activation duration time was significantly increased with all pacing modes compared to baseline. Finally, electromechanical delay, as defined by the delay between electrical activation and mechanical response, was increased by single site pacing (172.9 ms for RV pacing and 174.6 ms for LV pacing) but not by biventricular pacing (162.4 ms). CONCLUSIONS: Combined temporal and spatial coregistration electroanatomic maps and baseline gated blood pool SPECT imaging allowed us to quantify activation duration time, electromechanical delay, and LVEF for different pacing modes. Even if pacing modes did not significantly modify LVEF or activation duration, they produced alterations in electromechanical delay, with biventricular pacing significantly decreasing the electromechanical delay as measured by surface tracings and endocardial non-contact mapping.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy may improve survival and quality of life in patients suffering from heart failure with left ventricular (LV) contraction dyssynchrony. While several studies have investigated electrical or mechanical determinants of synchronous contraction, few have focused on activation contraction coupling at a macroscopic level. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize LV electromechanical behavior and response to pacing in a heart failure model. METHODS: We analyzed data from 3D electroanatomic non-contact mapping and blood pool SPECT for 12 dogs with right ventricular (RV) tachycardia pacing-induced dilated cardiomyopathy. Surfaces generated by the two modalities were registered. Electrical signals were analyzed, and endocardial wall displacement curves were portrayed. RESULTS: Rapid pacing decreased the mean LV ejection fraction (LVEF) to 20.9 % and prolonged the QRS duration to 79 ± 10 ms (normal range: 40-50 ms). QRS duration remained unchanged with biventricular pacing (88.5 ms), while single site pacing further prolonged the QRS duration (113.3 ms for RV pacing and 111.6 ms for LV pacing). No trend was observed in LV systolic function. Activation duration time was significantly increased with all pacing modes compared to baseline. Finally, electromechanical delay, as defined by the delay between electrical activation and mechanical response, was increased by single site pacing (172.9 ms for RV pacing and 174.6 ms for LV pacing) but not by biventricular pacing (162.4 ms). CONCLUSIONS: Combined temporal and spatial coregistration electroanatomic maps and baseline gated blood pool SPECT imaging allowed us to quantify activation duration time, electromechanical delay, and LVEF for different pacing modes. Even if pacing modes did not significantly modify LVEF or activation duration, they produced alterations in electromechanical delay, with biventricular pacing significantly decreasing the electromechanical delay as measured by surface tracings and endocardial non-contact mapping.
Authors: William T Abraham; Westby G Fisher; Andrew L Smith; David B Delurgio; Angel R Leon; Evan Loh; Dusan Z Kocovic; Milton Packer; Alfredo L Clavell; David L Hayes; Myrvin Ellestad; Robin J Trupp; Jackie Underwood; Faith Pickering; Cindy Truex; Peggy McAtee; John Messenger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fang Chan-Dewar; David Oxborough; Rob Shave; Warren Gregson; Greg Whyte; Tim Noakes; Keith George Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Arthur M Yue; John R Paisey; Steve Robinson; Tim R Betts; Paul R Roberts; John M Morgan Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-09-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christophe Leclercq; Owen Faris; Richard Tunin; Jennifer Johnson; Ritsuchi Kato; Frank Evans; Julio Spinelli; Henry Halperin; Elliot McVeigh; David A Kass Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Benjamin A Coppola; James W Covell; Andrew D McCulloch; Jeffrey H Omens Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2007-04-20 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Jonathan D Suever; Gregory R Hartlage; R Patrick Magrath; Shahriar Iravanian; Michael S Lloyd; John N Oshinski Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 5.364