INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications and management are well described in adults. Echocardiography (ECHO) has been used to optimize mechanical synchrony in these patients; however, there are issues with reproducibility and time intensity. Pediatric patients add challenges, with diverse substrates and limited capacity for cooperation. Electrocardiographic (ECG) methods to assess electrical synchrony are expeditious but have not been extensively studied in children. We sought to compare ECHO and ECG CRT optimization in children. METHODS: Prospective, pediatric, single-center cross-over trial comparing ECHO and ECG optimization with CRT. Patients were assigned to undergo either ECHO or ECG optimization, followed for 6 months, and crossed-over to the other assignment for another 6 months. ECHO pulsed-wave tissue Doppler and 12-lead ECG were obtained for 5 VV delays. ECG optimization was defined as the shortest QRSD and ECHO optimization as the lowest dyssynchrony index. ECHOs/ECGs were interpreted by readers blinded to optimization technique. After each 6 month period, these data were collected: ejection fraction, velocimetry-derived cardiac index, quality of life, ECHO-derived stroke distance, M-mode dyssynchrony, study cost, and time. Outcomes for each optimization method were compared. RESULTS:From June 2012 to December 2013, 19 patients enrolled. Mean age was 9.1 ± 4.3 years; 14 (74%) had structural heart disease. The mean time for optimization was shorter using ECG than ECHO (9 ± 1 min vs. 68 ± 13 min, P < 0.01). Mean cost for charges was $4,400 ± 700 less for ECG. No other outcome differed between groups. CONCLUSION: ECHO optimization of synchrony was not superior to ECG optimization in this pilot study. ECG optimization required less time and cost than ECHO optimization.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications and management are well described in adults. Echocardiography (ECHO) has been used to optimize mechanical synchrony in these patients; however, there are issues with reproducibility and time intensity. Pediatric patients add challenges, with diverse substrates and limited capacity for cooperation. Electrocardiographic (ECG) methods to assess electrical synchrony are expeditious but have not been extensively studied in children. We sought to compare ECHO and ECG CRT optimization in children. METHODS: Prospective, pediatric, single-center cross-over trial comparing ECHO and ECG optimization with CRT. Patients were assigned to undergo either ECHO or ECG optimization, followed for 6 months, and crossed-over to the other assignment for another 6 months. ECHO pulsed-wave tissue Doppler and 12-lead ECG were obtained for 5 VV delays. ECG optimization was defined as the shortest QRSD and ECHO optimization as the lowest dyssynchrony index. ECHOs/ECGs were interpreted by readers blinded to optimization technique. After each 6 month period, these data were collected: ejection fraction, velocimetry-derived cardiac index, quality of life, ECHO-derived stroke distance, M-mode dyssynchrony, study cost, and time. Outcomes for each optimization method were compared. RESULTS: From June 2012 to December 2013, 19 patients enrolled. Mean age was 9.1 ± 4.3 years; 14 (74%) had structural heart disease. The mean time for optimization was shorter using ECG than ECHO (9 ± 1 min vs. 68 ± 13 min, P < 0.01). Mean cost for charges was $4,400 ± 700 less for ECG. No other outcome differed between groups. CONCLUSION: ECHO optimization of synchrony was not superior to ECG optimization in this pilot study. ECG optimization required less time and cost than ECHO optimization.
Authors: Angela W C Lee; Andrew Crozier; Eoin R Hyde; Pablo Lamata; Michael Truong; Manav Sohal; Thomas Jackson; Jonathan M Behar; Simon Claridge; Anoop Shetty; Eva Sammut; Gernot Plank; Christopher Aldo Rinaldi; Steven Niederer Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2017-01-14
Authors: Pavel Jurak; Josef Halamek; Jaroslav Meluzin; Filip Plesinger; Tereza Postranecka; Jolana Lipoldova; Miroslav Novak; Vlastimil Vondra; Ivo Viscor; Ladislav Soukup; Petr Klimes; Petr Vesely; Josef Sumbera; Karel Zeman; Roshini S Asirvatham; Jason Tri; Samuel J Asirvatham; Pavel Leinveber Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 1.900