Literature DB >> 23816017

Effect of atrioventricular and ventriculoventricular delay optimization on clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis.

Dominique Auger1, Ulas Hoke, Jeroen J Bax, Eric Boersma, Victoria Delgado.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and ventriculoventricular (VV) delays of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices maximizes left ventricular filling and stroke volume. However, the incremental value of these optimizations over empiric device programming remains unclear. The objective of this analysis was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of AV and VV delay optimization on clinical and echocardiographic end points of patients with heart failure treated with CRT.
METHODS: A standardized search strategy was performed and identified 12 trials comparing AV and/or VV delay optimization and conventional CRT device programming and their effects on various clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. Pooled odds ratios were analyzed using random-effect meta-analysis with Mantel-Haenszel method.
RESULTS: Combined data from a total of 4,356 patients with heart failure treated with CRT showed no differences in clinical or echocardiographic outcomes between patients who underwent AV and/or VV delay optimization and patients who underwent empiric device programming (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio 0.86 [95% CI 0.68-1.09], P value for overall effect = .21 by intention-to-treat analysis).
CONCLUSION: The current literature suggests that routine AV and/or VV delay optimization has a neutral effect on clinical and echocardiographic outcomes based on pooled data from randomized and nonrandomized studies. Standardization of patient selection and optimization timing and method may help to further define the role of CRT device optimization.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23816017     DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.03.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  10 in total

1.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy update: evolving indications, expanding benefit?

Authors:  C Butcher; Y Mareev; V Markides; M Mason; T Wong; J G F Cleland
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.931

2.  Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with systematic device optimization vs. standard (non-systematic) optimization: a multinational economic evaluation.

Authors:  Kurt Banz; Peter Paul Delnoy; Jean Renaud Billuart
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2015-07-11

3.  Evidence that conflict regarding size of haemodynamic response to interventricular delay optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy may arise from differences in how atrioventricular delay is kept constant.

Authors:  S M Afzal Sohaib; Andreas Kyriacou; Siana Jones; Charlotte H Manisty; Jamil Mayet; Prapa Kanagaratnam; Nicholas S Peters; Alun D Hughes; Zachary I Whinnett; Darrel P Francis
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 5.214

Review 4.  The impact of gender difference on clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in patients with heart failure after cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fa-Hui Yin; Chun-Lei Fan; Ya-Ya Guo; Hai Zhu; Zhi-Lu Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Inadvertent QRS prolongation by an optimization device-based algorithm in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Kamil Sedláček; Rostislav Polášek; Helena Jansová; Domenico Grieco; Pavel Kučera; Josef Kautzner; Darrel P Francis; Dan Wichterle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Echocardiography and cardiac resynchronisation therapy, friends or foes?

Authors:  W M van Everdingen; J C Schipper; J van 't Sant; K Ramdat Misier; M Meine; M J Cramer
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 7.  Comparison between IEGM-based approach and echocardiography in AV/PV and VV delay optimization in CRT-D recipients (Quicksept study).

Authors:  Massimo Giammaria; Gianluca Quirino; Enrico Cecchi; Gaetano Senatore; Paolo Pistelli; Mario Bocchiardo; Roberto Mureddu; Paolo Diotallevi; Eraldo Occhetta; Andrea Magnani; Mauro Bensoni; Catia Checchinato; Valentina Conti; Sandra Badolati; Antonio Mazza
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2016-06-03

Review 8.  The Role of Echocardiography in the Optimization of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Michael Spartalis; Eleni Tzatzaki; Eleftherios Spartalis; Christos Damaskos; Antonios Athanasiou; Efthimios Livanis; Vassilis Voudris
Journal:  Open Cardiovasc Med J       Date:  2017-12-19

9.  Optimization of Chronic Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Using Fusion Pacing Algorithm Improves Echocardiographic Response.

Authors:  Ahmed AlTurki; Pedro Y Lima; Martin L Bernier; Daniel Garcia; Alejandro Vidal; Bruno Toscani; Sergio Diaz; Mauricio Montemezzo; Alaa Al-Dossari; Tomy Hadjis; Jacqueline Joza; Vidal Essebag
Journal:  CJC Open       Date:  2020-01-21

10.  Multicenter Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial Comparing Hemodynamic Optimization Against Echocardiographic Optimization of AV and VV Delay of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: The BRAVO Trial.

Authors:  Zachary I Whinnett; S M Afzal Sohaib; Mark Mason; Edward Duncan; Mark Tanner; David Lefroy; Mohamed Al-Obaidi; Sue Ellery; Francisco Leyva-Leon; Tim Betts; Mark Dayer; Paul Foley; Jon Swinburn; Martin Thomas; Raj Khiani; Tom Wong; Zaheer Yousef; Dominic Rogers; Paul R Kalra; Vignesh Dhileepan; Katherine March; James Howard; Andreas Kyriacou; Jamil Mayet; Prapa Kanagaratnam; Michael Frenneaux; Alun D Hughes; Darrel P Francis
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2018-05-16
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.