Premium
Positioning of Left Ventricular Pacing Lead Guided by Intracardiac Echocardiography with Vector Velocity Imaging During Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Procedure
Author(s) -
BAI RONG,
DI BIASE LUIGI,
MOHANTY PRASANT,
HESSELSON AARON B.,
DE RUVO ERMENEGILDO,
GALLAGHER PETER L.,
ELAYI CLAUDE S.,
MOHANTY SANGHAMITRA,
SANCHEZ JAVIER E.,
BURKHARDT J. DAVID,
HORTON RODNEY,
GALLINGHOUSE G. JOSEPH,
BAILEY SHANE M.,
ZAGRODZKY JASON D.,
CANBY ROBERT,
MINATI MONIA,
PRICE LARRY D.,
HUTCHINS C. LYNN,
MUIR MELODY A.,
CALO' LEONARDO,
NATALE ANDREA,
TOMASSONI GERY F.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02052.x
Subject(s) - cardiac resynchronization therapy , medicine , cardiology , lead (geology) , velocity vector , intracardiac injection , implant , heart failure , ejection fraction , surgery , geomorphology , aerospace engineering , engineering , geology
LV Lead Positioning Guided by ICE With Vector Velocity Imaging . Introduction : Intraoperative modality for “real‐time” left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony quantification and optimal resynchronization is not established. This study determined the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), coupled with vector velocity imaging (VVI), to evaluate LV dyssynchrony and to guide LV lead placement at the time of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implant. Methods : One hundred and four consecutive heart failure patients undergoing ICE‐guided (Group 1, N = 50) or conventional (Group 2, N = 54) CRT implant were included in the study. For Group 1 patients, LV dyssynchrony and resynchronization were evaluated by VVI including visual algorithms and the maximum differences in time‐to‐peak (MD‐TTP) radial strain. Based on the findings, the final LV lead site was determined and optimal resynchronization was achieved. CRT responders were defined using standard criteria 6 months after implantation. Results : Both groups underwent CRT implant with no complications. In Group 1, intraprocedural optimal resynchronization by VVI including visual algorithms and MD‐TTP was a predictor discriminating CRT response with a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 89%. Use of ICE/VVI increased number of and predicted CRT responders (82% in Group 1 vs 63% in Group 2; OR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.08–6.65, P = 0.03). Conclusion : ICE can be safely performed during CRT implantation. “Real‐time” VVI appears to be helpful in determining the final LV lead position and pacing mode that allow better intraprocedural resynchronization. VVI‐optimized acute resynchronization predicts CRT response and this approach is associated with higher number of CRT responders. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 22, pp. 1034‐1041, September 2011)