CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Trends and Impact of Door-to-Balloon Time on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Aged <75, 75 to 84, and ≥85 Years With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction National assessment of early β-blocker therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction in China, 2001-2011: The China Patient-centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events (PEACE)-Retrospective AMI Study 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infa A prospective, randomised trial of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in operable elderly patients with aortic stenosis: the STACCATO trial Fate of post-procedural malapposition of everolimus-eluting polymeric bioresorbable scaffold and everolimus-eluting cobalt chromium metallic stent in human coronary arteries: sequential assessment with optical coherence tomography in ABSORB Japan trial Early invasive versus non-invasive treatment in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (FRISC-II): 15 year follow-up of a prospective, randomised, multicentre study Clinical value of post-percutaneous coronary intervention fractional flow reserve value: A systematic review and meta-analysis Coronary Artery Plaque Characteristics Associated With Adverse Outcomes in the SCOT-HEART Study SCAI Expert Consensus Statement Update on Best Practices for Transradial Angiography and Intervention Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps)

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


BACKGROUNDPrevious 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.