Joost Lumens1, Sylvain Ploux2, Marc Strik3, John Gorcsan4, Hubert Cochet5, Nicolas Derval5, Maria Strom6, Charu Ramanathan6, Philippe Ritter5, Michel Haïssaguerre5, Pierre Jaïs5, Theo Arts3, Tammo Delhaas3, Frits W Prinzen3, Pierre Bordachar5. 1. Hôpital Cardiologique du Haut-Lévêque, CHU Bordeaux, L'Institut de rythmologie et modélisation cardiaque (LIRYC), Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France; Maastricht University Medical Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: joost.lumens@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Hôpital Cardiologique du Haut-Lévêque, CHU Bordeaux, L'Institut de rythmologie et modélisation cardiaque (LIRYC), Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France; Maastricht University Medical Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht, the Netherlands. 3. Maastricht University Medical Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht, the Netherlands. 4. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Hôpital Cardiologique du Haut-Lévêque, CHU Bordeaux, L'Institut de rythmologie et modélisation cardiaque (LIRYC), Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 6. CardioInsight Technologies, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of the working mechanism of cardiac resynchronization therapy by comparing animal experimental, clinical, and computational data on the hemodynamic and electromechanical consequences of left ventricular pacing (LVP) and biventricular pacing (BiVP). BACKGROUND: It is unclear why LVP and BiVP have comparative positive effects on hemodynamic function of patients with dyssynchronous heart failure. METHODS: Hemodynamic response to LVP and BiVP (% change in maximal rate of left ventricular pressure rise [LVdP/dtmax]) was measured in 6 dogs and 24 patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block followed by computer simulations of local myofiber mechanics during LVP and BiVP in the failing heart with left bundle branch block. Pacing-induced changes of electrical activation were measured in dogs using contact mapping and in patients using a noninvasive multielectrode electrocardiographic mapping technique. RESULTS: LVP and BiVP similarly increased LVdP/dtmax in dogs and in patients, but only BiVP significantly decreased electrical dyssynchrony. In the simulations, LVP and BiVP increased total ventricular myofiber work to the same extent. While the LVP-induced increase was entirely due to enhanced right ventricular (RV) myofiber work, the BiVP-induced increase was due to enhanced myofiber work of both the left ventricle (LV) and RV. Overall, LVdP/dtmax correlated better with total ventricular myofiber work than with LV or RV myofiber work alone. CONCLUSIONS: Animal experimental, clinical, and computational data support the similarity of hemodynamic response to LVP and BiVP, despite differences in electrical dyssynchrony. The simulations provide the novel insight that, through ventricular interaction, the RV myocardium importantly contributes to the improvement in LV pump function induced by cardiac resynchronization therapy.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of the working mechanism of cardiac resynchronization therapy by comparing animal experimental, clinical, and computational data on the hemodynamic and electromechanical consequences of left ventricular pacing (LVP) and biventricular pacing (BiVP). BACKGROUND: It is unclear why LVP and BiVP have comparative positive effects on hemodynamic function of patients with dyssynchronous heart failure. METHODS: Hemodynamic response to LVP and BiVP (% change in maximal rate of left ventricular pressure rise [LVdP/dtmax]) was measured in 6 dogs and 24 patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block followed by computer simulations of local myofiber mechanics during LVP and BiVP in the failing heart with left bundle branch block. Pacing-induced changes of electrical activation were measured in dogs using contact mapping and in patients using a noninvasive multielectrode electrocardiographic mapping technique. RESULTS: LVP and BiVP similarly increased LVdP/dtmax in dogs and in patients, but only BiVP significantly decreased electrical dyssynchrony. In the simulations, LVP and BiVP increased total ventricular myofiber work to the same extent. While the LVP-induced increase was entirely due to enhanced right ventricular (RV) myofiber work, the BiVP-induced increase was due to enhanced myofiber work of both the left ventricle (LV) and RV. Overall, LVdP/dtmax correlated better with total ventricular myofiber work than with LV or RV myofiber work alone. CONCLUSIONS: Animal experimental, clinical, and computational data support the similarity of hemodynamic response to LVP and BiVP, despite differences in electrical dyssynchrony. The simulations provide the novel insight that, through ventricular interaction, the RV myocardium importantly contributes to the improvement in LV pump function induced by cardiac resynchronization therapy.
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: A Auricchio; C Stellbrink; M Block; S Sack; J Vogt; P Bakker; H Klein; A Kramer; J Ding; R Salo; B Tockman; T Pochet; J Spinelli Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-06-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Y Etienne; J Mansourati; M Gilard; V Valls-Bertault; J Boschat; D G Benditt; K G Lurie; J J Blanc Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1999-04-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: J J Blanc; Y Etienne; M Gilard; J Mansourati; S Munier; J Boschat; D G Benditt; K G Lurie Journal: Circulation Date: 1997-11-18 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: Sylvain Ploux; Joost Lumens; Zachary Whinnett; Michel Montaudon; Maria Strom; Charu Ramanathan; Nicolas Derval; Adlane Zemmoura; Arnaud Denis; Maxime De Guillebon; Ashok Shah; Mélèze Hocini; Pierre Jaïs; Philippe Ritter; Michel Haïssaguerre; Bruce L Wilkoff; Pierre Bordachar Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David Soto Iglesias; Nicolas Duchateau; Constantine Butakoff Kostantyn Butakov; David Andreu; Juan Fernandez-Armenta; Bart Bijnens; Antonio Berruezo; Marta Sitges; Oscar Camara Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Jan De Pooter; Milad El Haddad; Victor Kamoen; Thomas Tibin Kallupurackal; Roland Stroobandt; Marc De Buyzere; Frank Timmermans Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Linyuan Jing; Christopher M Haggerty; Jonathan D Suever; Sudad Alhadad; Ashwin Prakash; Frank Cecchin; Oskar Skrinjar; Tal Geva; Andrew J Powell; Brandon K Fornwalt Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 6.875