CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Congestive Heart Failure

Abstract

Recommended Article

Is Acute heart failure a distinctive disorder? An analysis from BIOSTAT-CHF Primary Prevention of Heart Failure in Women Effects of Vildagliptin on Ventricular Function in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial SGLT-2 Inhibitors and Cardiovascular Risk: An Analysis of CVD-REAL Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Associations With Cardiovascular Disease in Adults Association of Cardiovascular Disease With Respiratory Disease Determinants of exercise intolerance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis Is Cardiac Diastolic Dysfunction a Part of Post-Menopausal Syndrome?
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2018 Mar;11(3):e005912.

JOURNAL：Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. Article Link

Can We Use the Intrinsic Left Ventricular Delay (QLV) to Optimize the Pacing Configuration for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With a Quadripolar Left Ventricular Lead?

van Everdingen WM, Zweerink A, Cramer MJ et al. Keywords: cardiac resynchronization therapy; heart failure; hemodynamics; humans; stroke volume

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Previous studies indicated the importance of the intrinsic left ventricular (LV) electric delay (QLV) for optimal benefit to cardiac resynchronization therapy. We investigated the use of QLV for achieving optimal acute hemodynamic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with a quadripolar LV lead.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Forty-eight heart failure patients with a left bundle branch block were prospectively enrolled (31 men; age, 66±10 years; LV ejection fraction, 28±8%; QRS duration, 176±14 ms). Immediately after cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation, invasive LV pressure-volume loops were recorded during biventricular pacing with each separate electrode at 4 atrioventricular delays. Acute cardiac resynchronization therapy response, measured as change in stroke work (Δ%SW) compared with intrinsic conduction, was related to intrinsic interval between Q on the ECG and LV sensing delay (QLV), normalized for QRS duration (QLV/QRSd), and electrode position. QLV/QRSd was 84±9% and variation between the 4 electrodes 9±5%. Δ%SW was 89±64% and varied by 39±36% between the electrodes. In univariate analysis, an anterolateral or lateral electrode position and a high QLV/QRSd had a significant association with a large Δ%SW (all P <0.01). In a combined model, only QLV/QRSd remained significantly associated with Δ%SW (P<0.05). However, a direct relation between QLV/QRSd and Δ%SW was only seen in 24 patients, whereas 24 patients showed an inverse relation.

CONCLUSIONS - The large variation in acute hemodynamic response indicates that the choice of the stimulated electrode on a quadripolar lead is important. Although QLV/QRSd was associated with acute hemodynamic response at group level, it cannot be used to select the optimal electrode in the individual patient.

© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top