Article

Left ventricular lead electrical delay predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Heart Rhythm (Impact Factor: 5.05). 11/2006; 3(11):1285-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.07.034
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Intracardiac electrograms can be used to guide left ventricular (LV) lead placement during implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. Although attempts often are made to ensure that the LV lead is positioned at a site of maximal electrical delay, information on whether this is useful in predicting the acute hemodynamic response and long-term clinical outcome to CRT is limited.
The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of intracardiac (electrogram) measurements made during LV lead placement in patients undergoing CRT for predicting acute hemodynamic response and long-term clinical outcome to CRT.
Seventy-one subjects with standard indications for CRT underwent electrogram measurements and echocardiograms performed in the acute phase of this study. The LV lead electrical delay was measured intraoperatively from the onset of the surface ECG QRS complex to the onset of the sensed electrogram on the LV lead, as a percentage of the baseline QRS interval. Echocardiographic assessment of the hemodynamic response to CRT was measured as an intra-individual percentage change in dP/dt over baseline (DeltadP/dt, derived from the mitral regurgitation Doppler profile) with CRT on and off. dP/dt was measurable in 48 subjects, and acute responders to CRT were defined as those with DeltadP/dt >or=25%. Long-term response was measured as a combined endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure and/or all cause mortality at 12 months. Time to the primary endpoint was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, with comparisons made using the log rank test.
LV lead electrical delay correlated weakly with DeltadP/dt of the combined group (n = 48, r = 0.311, P = .029) but was strongly correlated with DeltadP/dt in the nonischemic subgroup (n = 20, r = 0.48, P = .027). LV lead electrical delay (%) was significantly longer in acute responders (69.6 +/- 23.9 vs 31.95 +/- 11.57, P = .002) among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. A reduced LV lead electrical delay (<50% of the QRS duration) was associated with worse clinical outcome within the entire cohort (hazard ratio: 2.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.17-6.68, P = .032) as well as when stratified into ischemic and nonischemic subgroups.
Measuring LV lead electrical delay is useful during CRT device implantation because it may help predict hemodynamic response and long-term clinical outcome.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
129 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimCurrent targeted left ventricular (LV) lead placement strategy is directed at the latest activated region during intrinsic activation. However, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is most commonly applied by simultaneous LV and right ventricular (RV) pacing without contribution from intrinsic conduction. Therefore, targeting the LV lead to the latest activated region during RV pacing might be more appropriate. We investigated the difference in LV electrical activation sequence between left bundle-branch block (LBBB) and RV apex (RVA) pacing using coronary venous electro-anatomic mapping (EAM).Methods and resultsTwenty consecutive CRT candidates with LBBB underwent intra-procedural coronary venous EAM during intrinsic activation and RVA pacing using EnSite NavX. Left ventricular lead placement was aimed at the latest activated region during LBBB according to current recommendations. In all patients, LBBB was associated with a circumferential LV activation pattern, whereas RVA pacing resulted in activation from the apex of the heart to the base. In 10 of 20 patients, RVA pacing shifted the latest activated region relative to LBBB. In 18 of 20 patients, the LV lead was successfully positioned in the latest activated region during LBBB. For the whole study population, LV lead electrical delay, expressed as percentage of QRS duration, was significantly shorter during RVA pacing than during LBBB (72 ± 13 vs. 82 ± 5%, P = 0.035).Conclusion Right ventricular apex pacing alters LV electrical activation pattern in CRT patients with LBBB, and shifts the latest activated region in a significant proportion of these patients. These findings warrant reconsideration of the current practice of LV lead targeting for CRT.
    European Journal of Heart Failure 10/2014; · 5.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) emerged 2 decades ago as a useful form of device therapy for heart failure associated with abnormal ventricular conduction, indicated by a wide QRS complex. In this Review, we present insights into how to achieve the greatest benefits with this pacemaker therapy. Outcomes from CRT can be improved by appropriate patient selection, careful positioning of right and left ventricular pacing electrodes, and optimal timing of electrode stimulation. Left bundle branch block (LBBB), which can be detected on an electrocardiogram, is the predominant substrate for CRT, and patients with this conduction abnormality yield the most benefit. However, other features, such as QRS morphology, mechanical dyssynchrony, myocardial scarring, and the aetiology of heart failure, might also determine the benefit of CRT. No single left ventricular pacing site suits all patients, but a late-activated site, during either the intrinsic LBBB rhythm or right ventricular pacing, should be selected. Positioning the lead inside a scarred region substantially impairs outcomes. Optimization of stimulation intervals improves cardiac pump function in the short term, but CRT procedures must become easier and more reliable, perhaps with the use of electrocardiographic measures, to improve long-term outcomes.
    Nature Reviews Cardiology 05/2014; · 10.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several studies have demonstrated the beneficial effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with drug-refractory heart failure. A variable proportion, up to 30%, of CRT patients do not benefit from treatment. The lack of response to CRT has a variety of potential causes. The implantation process is fundamental to the success of CRT, since little can subsequently be done to improve the CRT response. The authors reviewed all the geometrical and electrical parameters that could guide the CRT implant and predict its response.
    Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy 05/2014;