Ventricular activation patterns during intrinsic conduction and right ventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.
cardiac resynchronization therapy
electrical delay
heart failure
ventricular pacing
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
revised:
10
07
2021
received:
29
05
2021
accepted:
18
07
2021
pubmed:
29
7
2021
medline:
2
2
2022
entrez:
28
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) involves stimulation of both right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV). LV pacing from the sites of delayed electrical activation improves CRT response. The RV-LV conduction is typically measured in intrinsic rhythm. The differences in RV-LV conduction patterns and timing between intrinsic rhythm and during paced RV activation, these differences are not fully understood. Enrolled patients were implanted with a de novo CRT device and quadripolar LV lead, with lead implant locations at the implanting physician's discretion. QRS duration and conduction delay between the RV lead and each of the four LV electrodes (D1, M2, M3, and P4) were measured during intrinsic conduction and RV pacing. Conduction measurements were collected from 275 patients across 14 international centers (68 ± 13 years of age, 73% male, 45% ischemic, 158 ± 22 ms QRS duration). Mean RV-LV conduction time was shorter during intrinsic conduction versus RV pacing by 59.6 ms (106.5 ± 36.5 versus 166.1 ± 32.1 ms, p < 0.001). The intra-LV activation delay between the latest and earliest activating LV electrode was also shorter during intrinsic conduction versus RV pacing by 6.6 ms (20.6 ± 13.1 vs. 27.2 ± 21.2 ms, p < 0.001). Intrinsic conduction and RV pacing resulted in a different activation order in 72.7% of patients, and the same LV activation order in 27.3%. Differences in RV-LV conduction time, intra-LV conduction time, and activation pattern were observed between intrinsic conduction and RV pacing. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating intrinsic versus paced ventricular activation to guide LV pacing site selection in CRT patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) involves stimulation of both right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV). LV pacing from the sites of delayed electrical activation improves CRT response. The RV-LV conduction is typically measured in intrinsic rhythm. The differences in RV-LV conduction patterns and timing between intrinsic rhythm and during paced RV activation, these differences are not fully understood.
METHODS
METHODS
Enrolled patients were implanted with a de novo CRT device and quadripolar LV lead, with lead implant locations at the implanting physician's discretion. QRS duration and conduction delay between the RV lead and each of the four LV electrodes (D1, M2, M3, and P4) were measured during intrinsic conduction and RV pacing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Conduction measurements were collected from 275 patients across 14 international centers (68 ± 13 years of age, 73% male, 45% ischemic, 158 ± 22 ms QRS duration). Mean RV-LV conduction time was shorter during intrinsic conduction versus RV pacing by 59.6 ms (106.5 ± 36.5 versus 166.1 ± 32.1 ms, p < 0.001). The intra-LV activation delay between the latest and earliest activating LV electrode was also shorter during intrinsic conduction versus RV pacing by 6.6 ms (20.6 ± 13.1 vs. 27.2 ± 21.2 ms, p < 0.001). Intrinsic conduction and RV pacing resulted in a different activation order in 72.7% of patients, and the same LV activation order in 27.3%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Differences in RV-LV conduction time, intra-LV conduction time, and activation pattern were observed between intrinsic conduction and RV pacing. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating intrinsic versus paced ventricular activation to guide LV pacing site selection in CRT patients.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1663-1670Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Cleland JG, Calvert MJ, Verboven Y, Freemantle N. Effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on long-term quality of life: an analysis from the CArdiac Resynchronisation-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) study. Am Heart J. 2009;157:457-466.
Moss AJ, Jackson Hall W, Cannon DS, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1329-1338.
Tang ASL, Wells GA, Talajic M, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2385-2395.
Goldenberg I, Kutyifa V, Klein HU, et al. Survival with cardiac-resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1694-1701.
Auricchio A, Stellbrink C, Sack S, et al. Long-term clinical effect of hemodynamically optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and ventricular conduction delay. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:2026-2033.
Fornwalt BK, Sprague WW, BeDell P, et al. Agreement is poor among current criteria used to define response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation. 2010;121:1985-1991.
Birnie DH, Tang AS. The problem of non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2006;21:20-26.
Singh JP, Klein HU, Huang DT, et al. Left ventricular lead position and clinical outcome in the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial-cardiac resynchronization therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial. Circulation. 2011;123:1159-1166.
Gold MR, Leman RB, Wold N, Sturdivant J, Yu Y. The effect of left ventricular electrical delay on the acute hemodynamic response with cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25:624-630.
Field ME, Yu N, Wold N, Gold MR. Comparison of measures of ventricular delay on cardiac resynchronization therapy response. Hear Rhythm. 2020.
Eschalier R, Ploux S, Lumens J, et al. Detailed analysis of ventricular activation sequences during right ventricular apical pacing and left bundle branch block and the potential implications for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Hear Rhythm. 2015;12:137-143.
Varma N. Left ventricular conduction delays induced by right ventricular apical pacing : effect of left ventricular dysfunction and bundle branch block. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2008;19:114-122.
Barsheshet A, Goldenberg I, Moss AJ, et al. Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT. Eur Heart J. 2011.
Moubarak G, Sebag FA, Socie P, Villejoubert O, Louembe J, Ferchaud V. Interrelationships between interventricular electrical delays in cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020.
Bordachar P, Garrigue S, Lafitte S, et al. Interventricular and intra-left ventricular electromechanical delays in right ventricular paced patients with heart failure: implications for upgrading to biventricular stimulation. Heart. 2003;89:1401-1405.
Gessner M, Blazek G, Kainz W, Gruska M, Gaul G. Application of pulsed-doppler tissue imaging in patients with dual chamber pacing: the importance of conduction time and AV delay on regional left ventricular wall dynamics. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998;21:2273-2279.
van Everdingen WM, Zweerink A, Cramer MJ, et al. Can we use the intrinsic left ventricular delay (QLV) to optimize the pacing configuration for cardiac resynchronization therapy with a quadripolar left ventricular lead?. Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2018;11.
Varma N, O'Donnell D, Bassiouny M, et al. Programming cardiac resynchronization therapy for electrical synchrony: reaching beyond left bundle branch block and left ventricular activation delay. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e007489.
Thibault B, Ritter P, Bode K, et al. Dynamic programming of atrioventricular delay improves electrical synchrony in a multicenter cardiac resynchronization therapy study. Hear Rhythm. 2019;16.
Engels EB, Thibault B, Mangual J, et al. Dynamic atrioventricular delay programming improves ventricular electrical synchronization as evaluated by 3D vectorcardiography. J Electrocardiol. 2020.
Lunati M, O'Donnell D, Li S, Smeets P, Cha Y-M, Singh J. A report of real-world incidence of atrial arrhythmia in heart failure patients after applying ADAPTIV-CRT algorithm. Circulation. 2018.
Singh JP, Cha YM, Lunati M, et al. Real-world behavior of CRT pacing using the AdaptivCRT algorithm on patient outcomes: effect on mortality and atrial fibrillation incidence. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020.
Wisnoskey BJ, Varma N. Left ventricular paced activation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients with left bundle branch block and relationship to its electrical substrate. Hear Rhythm O2. 2020.