Premium
Combination of the best pacing configuration and atrioventricular and interventricular delays optimization in cardiac resynchronization therapy
Author(s) -
Socie Pierre,
Squara Fabien,
Semichon Marc,
Thomas Olivier,
Khemache Alain,
Riccini Philippe,
Squara Pierre,
Algalarrondo Vincent,
Moubarak Ghassan
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.13294
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiac resynchronization therapy , cardiology , ventricular pacing , lead (geology) , heart failure , ejection fraction , geomorphology , geology
Background Cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization can be pursued by left ventricular pacing vector selection and atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delays optimization. The combination of these methods and its comparison with multipoint pacing (MPP) is scarcely studied. Methods Using noninvasive cardiac output (CO) measurement, the best of five left ventricular pacing vectors was determined, then AV and VV delays optimization was applied on top of the best vector. Response to the optimization protocol was defined as a >5% CO increase compared to the standard biventricular configuration. Results Twenty‐two patients (18 men, age 71 ± 9 years) were included. Standard biventricular configuration increased CO compared to baseline (4.65 ± 1.55 L/min vs 4.27 ± 1.53 L/min, respectively, P = 0.02). The best quadripolar configuration increased CO to 4.85 ± 1.67 L/min (P = 0.03 compared to the standard biventricular configuration). AV then VV delay optimization both provided additional benefit (final CO 5.56 ± 2.03 L/min, P = 0.001 compared to the best quadripolar configuration). Fifteen (68%) patients responded to the optimization protocol. Anatomical MPP (based on maximal anatomical separation between electrodes) and electrical MPP (based on maximal electrical activation difference between electrodes) were evaluated in 16 patients and yielded a CO similar to that of the optimization procedure. Conclusions The combination of choosing the best quadripolar pacing configuration and optimizing atrioventricular and interventricular delays resulted in an improvement of cardiac output compared to standard biventricular stimulation in 68% of patients. The final cardiac output was comparable to multipoint pacing.