Article

Usefulness of the 12-lead electrocardiogram in the follow-up of patients with cardiac resynchronization devices. Part II

Florida Heart Rhythm Institute, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Cardiology journal (Impact Factor: 1.22). 11/2011; 18(6):610-24. DOI: 10.5603/CJ.2011.0024
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The interval from the pacemaker stimulus to the onset of the earliest paced QRS complex (latency) may be prolonged during left ventricular (LV) pacing. Marked latency is more common with LV than right ventricular (RV) pacing because of indirect stimulation through a coronary vein and higher incidence of LV pathology including scars. During simultaneous biventricular (BiV) pacing a prolonged latency interval may give rise to an ECG dominated by the pattern of RV pacing with a left bundle branch block configuration and commonly a QS complex in lead V1. With marked latency programming the V-V interval (LV before RV) often restore the dominant R wave in lead V1 representing the visible contribution of the LV to overall myocardial depolarization. When faced with a negative QRS complex in lead V1 during simultaneous BiV pacing especially in setting of a relatively short PR interval, the most likely diagnosis is ventricular fusion with the intrinsic rhythm. Fusion may cause misinterpretation of the ECG because narrowing of the paced QRS complex simulates appropriate BiV capture. The diagnosis of fusion depends on temporary reprogramming a very short atrio-ventricular delay or an asynchronous BiV pacing mode. Sequential programming of various interventricular (V-V) delays may bring out a diagnostic dominant QRS complex in lead V1 that was previously negative with simultaneous LV and RV apical pacing even in the absence of an obvious latency problem. The emergence of a dominant R wave by V-V programming strongly indicates that the LV lead captures the LV from the posterior or the posterolateral coronary vein and therefore rules out pacing from the middle or anterior coronary vein. In some cardiac resynchronization systems LV pacing is achieved with the tip electrode of the LV lead as the cathode and the proximal electrode of the bipolar RV as the anode. This arrangement creates a common anode for both RV and LV pacing. RV anodal capture can occur at a high LV output during BiV pacing when it may cause slight ECG changes. During LV only pacing (RV channel turned off) RV anodal pacing may also occur in a more obvious form so that the ECG looks precisely like that during BiV pacing. RV anodal stimulation may complicate threshold testing and ECG interpretation and should not be misinterpreted as pacemaker malfunction. Programming the V-V interval (LV before RV) in the setting of RV anodal stimulation cancels the V-V timing to zero.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
78 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: There is a paucity of data concerning the use of QRS morphology patterns for identifying pacing sites during left ventricle (LV)-only epicardial pacing in patients with a biventricular device. The objective of this study was to identify QRS patterns during LV-only pacing, and to establish their relationship with LV lead position. In addition, to validate the diagnostic performance of such electrocardiogram (ECG) patterns for predicting posterolateral versus anterior and apical versus nonapical LV pacing site. Methods: The study retrospectively analyzed data from 376 cardiac resynchronization therapy device patients. Data analyzed included ECGs registered during LV-only VVI pacing, fluoroscopic projections, and lateral chest roentgenograms that documented postimplantation LV lead position. Phase one of the study involved categorization of the ECG patterns of the first 66 study cases. Phase two of the study examined the association between ECG pattern and different LV lead positions. Results: As the LV epicardial pacing site became more anteroapical, the LV-only paced QRS complexes in the precordial leads became more negative. Three ECG patterns were identified (posterolateral, intermediate, and anteroapical), and their distribution was found to be associated with LV lead position (P < 0.001). The posterolateral ECG pattern was mostly observed in cases where the LV lead was in the posterolateral area (diagnostic accuracy of 89.1% for predicting a nonapical LV lead position). The anteroapical ECG pattern was associated with LV leads in anteroapical segments (specificity of 98.5%, accuracy of 89.1% for predicting an anteroapical pacing site). Conclusions: Posterolateral and anteroapical ECG patterns are highly predictive of LV lead position. (PACE 2012;XX:XXX-XXX).
    Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 09/2012; 35(11). DOI:10.1111/j.1540-8159.2012.03504.x · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become a standard option for patients with severe low cardiac function and mild to severe heart failure. However, its potential has not been maximized to date, as the optimal atrioventricular delay, ventriculoventricular (VV) delay, and tachy therapy settings remain unknown. Here, data from various studies have been used to estimate several CRT settings. Three search words—interventricular interval, VV delay, and interventricular delay with cardiac resynchronization therapy—were entered into PubMed. The methods used to optimize VV delay included ultrasonography, radioisotope diagnosis, scintigraphy, electrocardiography, Swan–Ganz catheterization, and thoracic impedance. Their populations and results were analyzed to identify convincing rules. Methods for VV delay optimization in the literature can be categorized into four patterns. Time and cost were high in several categories. Most studies concluded that their method was effective but no small amount of papers denied individual detailed optimization. There were some population biases in most papers. Individual optimization had a major impact in patients with ischemic heart disease but no significant impact in patients with non-ischemic heart diseases. In summary, CRT is an established therapy, but a well-controlled study is required to find conclusive methods for VV delay optimization.
    Journal of Arrhythmia 06/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.joa.2014.03.013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Electrocardiograms (ECGs) are routinely obtained in patients with advanced congestive heart failure (CHF) before and after surgical implantation with a left-ventricular assist device (LVAD). As the number of patients with CHF is increasing, it is necessary to characterize the changes present in the ECG of patients with LVADs.MethodsECGs of 43 patients pre- and postimplantation of a HeartMate II LVAD were compared to characterize the presence of an LVAD using the following six criteria (LVADS2): low limb-lead voltage, ventricular pacing, artifact (electrical), duration of the QRS > 120 milliseconds, ST-elevation in the lateral leads, and splintering of the QRS complex. Additionally, 50 ECGs of non-LVAD patients coded as “lateral myocardial infarction (MI)” and 50 ECGs coded as “ventricular pacing” were chosen at random and scored. Odds ratios were calculated using Fisher's exact test. Logistic regression models were built to predict the presence of an LVAD in all patients.ResultsUnivariate analysis of the pre- and post-LVAD ECGs confirmed that all criteria except the “Duration of QRS > 120 milliseconds” characterized the ECG of a patient with an LVAD. Electrical artifact and low limb-lead voltage yielded the greatest association with an LVAD-ECG.Conclusions The ECG of a patient with end-stage CHF significantly changes with LVAD implantation. The LVADS2 criteria provide a framework towards characterizing and establishing a new baseline of the ECG in a patient with a continuous-flow LVAD.
    Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology 07/2014; 20(1). DOI:10.1111/anec.12181 · 1.08 Impact Factor