Jie Li1,2, Yuegang Wang3, Jingting Mai4, Shilan Chen1,2, Menghui Liu1,2, Chen Su1,2, Xumiao Chen1,2, Huiling Huang1,2, Yuedong Ma1,2, Chong Feng1,2, Jingzhou Jiang1,2, Jun Liu1,2, Jiangui He1,2, Anli Tang1,2, Yugang Dong1,2, Xiaobo Huang3, Yangxin Chen5, Lichun Wang6. 1. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 58, Zhongshan 2nd Rd, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 2. Key Laboratory On Assisted Circulation, Ministry of Health, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Cardiology, Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Cardiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No.107, Yanjianxi Rd, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Cardiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No.107, Yanjianxi Rd, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. chenyx39@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 6. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 58, Zhongshan 2nd Rd, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. wanglich@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular (AV) delay could affect AV and ventricular synchrony in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Strategies to optimize AV delay according to optimal AV synchrony (AVopt-AV) or ventricular synchrony (AVopt-V) would potentially be discordant. This study aimed to explore a new AV delay optimization algorithm guided by electrograms to obtain the maximum integrative effects of AV and ventricular resynchronization (opt-AV). METHODS: Forty-nine patients with CRT were enrolled. AVopt-AV was measured through the Ritter method. AVopt-V was obtained by yielding the narrowest QRS. The opt-AV was considered to be AVopt-AV or AVopt-V when their difference was < 20 ms, and to be the AV delay with the maximal aortic velocity-time integral between AVopt-AV and AVopt-V when their difference was > 20 ms. RESULTS: The results showed that sensing/pacing AVopt-AV (SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV) were correlated with atrial activation time (Pend-As/Pend-Ap) (P < 0.05). Sensing/pacing AVopt-V (SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V) was correlated with the intrinsic AV conduction time (As-Vs/Ap-Vs) (P < 0.01). The percentages of patients with more than 20 ms differences between SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V were 62.9% and 57.1%, respectively. Among them, opt-AV was linearly correlated with SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V. The sensing opt-AV (opt-SAV) = 0.1 × SAVopt-AV + 0.4 × SAVopt-V + 70 ms (R2 = 0.665, P < 0.01) and the pacing opt-AV (opt-PAV) = 0.25 × PAVopt-AV + 0.5 × PAVopt-V + 30 ms (R2 = 0.560, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V were correlated with the atrial activation time and the intrinsic AV conduction interval respectively. Almost half of the patients had a > 20 ms difference between SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V. The opt-AV could be estimated based on electrogram parameters.
BACKGROUND:Atrioventricular (AV) delay could affect AV and ventricular synchrony in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Strategies to optimize AV delay according to optimal AV synchrony (AVopt-AV) or ventricular synchrony (AVopt-V) would potentially be discordant. This study aimed to explore a new AV delay optimization algorithm guided by electrograms to obtain the maximum integrative effects of AV and ventricular resynchronization (opt-AV). METHODS: Forty-nine patients with CRT were enrolled. AVopt-AV was measured through the Ritter method. AVopt-V was obtained by yielding the narrowest QRS. The opt-AV was considered to be AVopt-AV or AVopt-V when their difference was < 20 ms, and to be the AV delay with the maximal aortic velocity-time integral between AVopt-AV and AVopt-V when their difference was > 20 ms. RESULTS: The results showed that sensing/pacing AVopt-AV (SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV) were correlated with atrial activation time (Pend-As/Pend-Ap) (P < 0.05). Sensing/pacing AVopt-V (SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V) was correlated with the intrinsic AV conduction time (As-Vs/Ap-Vs) (P < 0.01). The percentages of patients with more than 20 ms differences between SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V were 62.9% and 57.1%, respectively. Among them, opt-AV was linearly correlated with SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V. The sensing opt-AV (opt-SAV) = 0.1 × SAVopt-AV + 0.4 × SAVopt-V + 70 ms (R2 = 0.665, P < 0.01) and the pacing opt-AV (opt-PAV) = 0.25 × PAVopt-AV + 0.5 × PAVopt-V + 30 ms (R2 = 0.560, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V were correlated with the atrial activation time and the intrinsic AV conduction interval respectively. Almost half of the patients had a > 20 ms difference between SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V. The opt-AV could be estimated based on electrogram parameters.
Entities:
Keywords:
AV delay; Atrioventricular synchrony; Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Ventricular synchrony