Literature DB >> 24291411

Multipoint left ventricular pacing improves acute hemodynamic response assessed with pressure-volume loops in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.

Carlo Pappone1, Žarko Ćalović2, Gabriele Vicedomini2, Amarild Cuko2, Luke C McSpadden3, Kyungmoo Ryu3, Enrico Romano4, Massimo Saviano2, Mario Baldi2, Alessia Pappone2, Cristiano Ciaccio2, Luigi Giannelli2, Bogdan Ionescu2, Andrea Petretta2, Raffaele Vitale2, Angelica Fundaliotis5, Luigi Tavazzi2, Vincenzo Santinelli2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves acute cardiac hemodynamics.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if CRT with multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing in a single coronary sinus branch (MultiPoint Pacing [MPP], St Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA) can offer further hemodynamic benefits to patients.
METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients (80% men, New York Heart Association III, end-systolic volume 180 ± 77 mL, ejection fraction 27% ± 6%, and QRS duration 152 ± 17 ms) receiving a CRT device implant (Unify Quadra MP or Quadra Assura MP and Quartet LV lead, St Jude Medical) underwent intraoperative assessment of LV hemodynamics by using a pressure-volume loop system (Inca, CD Leycom). A pacing protocol was performed, including 9 biventricular pacing interventions with conventional CRT (CONV) using distal and proximal LV electrodes and various MPP configurations. Each pacing intervention was performed twice in randomized order with right ventricular pacing (BASELINE) repeated after every intervention.
RESULTS: Evaluable recordings were obtained in 42 patients. Relative to BASELINE, the best MPP intervention significantly increased the rate of pressure change (dP/dtmax; 15.9% ± 10.0% vs 13.5% ± 8.8%; P < .001), stroke work (27.2% ± 42.5% vs 19.4% ± 32.2%; P = .018), stroke volume (10.4% ± 22.5% vs 4.1% ± 13.1%; P = .003), and ejection fraction (10.5% ± 20.9% vs 5.3% ± 13.2%; P = .003) as compared with the best CONV intervention. Moreover, the best MPP intervention improved acute diastolic function, significantly decreasing -dP/dtmin (-13.5% ± 10.2% vs -10.6% ± 6.8%; P = .011), relaxation time constant (-7.5% ± 9.0% vs -4.8% ± 7.2%; P = .012), and end-diastolic pressure (-18.2% ± 22.4% vs -8.7% ± 21.4%; P < .001) as compared with the best CONV intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: CRT with MPP can significantly improve acute LV hemodynamic parameters assessed with pressure-volume loop measurements as compared with CONV.
Copyright © 2014 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Heart failure; Hemodynamics; MultiPoint Pacing; Pressure-volume loops

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24291411     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.11.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  34 in total

Review 1.  Updates in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy for Chronic Heart Failure: Review of Multisite Pacing.

Authors:  Antonios P Antoniadis; Ben Sieniewicz; Justin Gould; Bradley Porter; Jessica Webb; Simon Claridge; Jonathan M Behar; Christopher Aldo Rinaldi
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2017-10

2.  Limitations of chronic delivery of multi-vein left ventricular stimulation for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Jonathan M Behar; Julian Bostock; Matthew Ginks; Tom Jackson; Manav Sohal; Simon Claridge; Reza Razavi; Christopher Aldo Rinaldi
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 3.  Multisite pacing via a quadripolar lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Alexandre Bodin; Arnaud Bisson; Clémentine Andre; Bertrand Pierre; Laurent Fauchier; Dominique Babuty; Nicolas Clementy
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 4.  [Multipoint pacing-more CRT or a waste of battery power?]

Authors:  J Müller-Leisse; C Zormpas; T König; D Duncker; C Veltmann
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.443

5.  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

Review 6.  Multisite Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Promise and Pitfalls.

Authors:  Antonios P Antoniadis; Jonathan M Behar; Simon Claridge; Tom Jackson; Manav Sohal; Christopher Aldo Rinaldi
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 7.  Optimizing CRT - Do We Need More Leads and Delivery Methods.

Authors:  Pieter Martens; Frederik Hendrik Verbrugge; Wilfried Mullens
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2015-04-30

Review 8.  Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy-Emerging Therapeutic Approaches.

Authors:  Neal A Chatterjee; E Kevin Heist
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-03-06

Review 9.  Right Ventricular-Pulmonary Vascular Interactions.

Authors:  Diana M Tabima; Jennifer L Philip; Naomi C Chesler
Journal:  Physiology (Bethesda)       Date:  2017-09

10.  Rationale and design of a randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy: The MPP Trial.

Authors:  Gery Tomassoni; James Baker; Raffaele Corbisiero; Charles Love; David Martin; Robert Sheppard; Seth J Worley; Kwangdeok Lee; Imran Niazi
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 1.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.