Differential effect with septal and apical RV pacing on ventricular activation in patients with left bundle branch block assessed by non-invasive electrical imaging and in silico modelling.
Body surface mapping
Cardiac resynchronization therapy
Computer modelling
Left bundle branch block
RV septal pacing
Journal
Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing
ISSN: 1572-8595
Titre abrégé: J Interv Card Electrophysiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9708966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
14
11
2018
accepted:
19
05
2019
pubmed:
16
6
2019
medline:
20
1
2021
entrez:
16
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It is uncertain whether right ventricular (RV) lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy impacts response. There has been little detailed analysis of the activation patterns in RV septal pacing (RVSP), especially in the CRT population. We compare left bundle branch block (LBBB) activation patterns with RV pacing (RVP) within the same patients with further comparison between RV apical pacing (RVAP) and RVSP. Body surface mapping was undertaken in 14 LBBB patients after CRT implantation. Nine patients had RVAP, 5 patients had RVSP. Activation parameters included left ventricular total activation time (LVtat), biventricular total activation time (VVtat), interventricular electrical synchronicity (VVsync), and dispersion of left ventricular activation times (LVdisp). The direction of activation wave front was also compared in each patient (wave front angle (WFA)). In silico computer modelling was applied to assess the effect of RVAP and RVSP in order to validate the clinical results. Patients were aged 64.6 ± 12.2 years, 12 were male, 8 were ischemic. Baseline QRS durations were 157 ± 18 ms. There was no difference in VVtat between RVP and LBBB but a longer LVtat in RVP (102.8 ± 19.6 vs. 87.4 ± 21.1 ms, p = 0.046). VVsync was significantly greater in LBBB (45.1 ± 20.2 vs. 35.9 ± 17.1 ms, p = 0.01) but LVdisp was greater in RVP (33.4 ± 5.9 vs. 27.6 ± 6.9 ms, p = 0.025). WFA did rotate clockwise with RVP vs. LBBB (82.5 ± 25.2 vs. 62.1 ± 31.7 RVAP activation differs from LBBB where RVSP appears similar. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01831518).
Identifiants
pubmed: 31201592
doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00567-2
pii: 10.1007/s10840-019-00567-2
pmc: PMC7036078
mid: EMS83875
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01831518']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115-123Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 203148
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : Biomedical Research Centre
Organisme : Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
ID : EP/M012492/1
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : WT 203148/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
J Electrocardiol. 2015 Jan-Feb;48(1):53-61
pubmed: 25301520
Circulation. 2011 Mar 15;123(10):1061-72
pubmed: 21357819
Heart. 2015 Sep;101(18):1456-62
pubmed: 25678498
Circulation. 2004 Mar 9;109(9):1133-9
pubmed: 14993135
Eur Heart J. 2011 Oct;32(20):2516-24
pubmed: 21875862
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Jan;12(1):137-43
pubmed: 25285646
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jun 18;61(24):2435-2443
pubmed: 23602768
Eur Heart J. 2016 Feb 1;37(5):473-83
pubmed: 26374852
Heart Rhythm. 2005 Apr;2(4):339-54
pubmed: 15851333
Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 Nov;16(11):1214-22
pubmed: 25315161
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2011 Oct;107(1):147-55
pubmed: 21763714
Heart Rhythm. 2013 Dec;10(12):1770-7
pubmed: 23973954
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2003 Feb;14(2):135-41
pubmed: 12693492
Eur Heart J. 2013 Aug;34(29):2281-329
pubmed: 23801822
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2008 Apr;19(4):392-9
pubmed: 18179529
Europace. 2015 Aug;17(8):1259-66
pubmed: 25829472
Front Physiol. 2011 Apr 09;2:14
pubmed: 21516246
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 Aug 01;16:58
pubmed: 25084814
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Apr 24;59(17):1509-18
pubmed: 22405632
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017 Feb;28(2):208-215
pubmed: 27885749