Hemodynamic device-based optimization in cardiac resynchronization therapy: concordance with systematic echocardiographic assessment of AV and VV intervals
Authors Oliveira M, Branco L, Galrinho A, da Silva N, Cunha PS, Valente B, Feliciano J, Pimenta R, Delgado AS, Ferreira RC
Received 10 February 2015
Accepted for publication 5 May 2015
Published 6 August 2015 Volume 2015:6 Pages 97—103
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Kones
Mário M Oliveira, Luisa M Branco, Ana Galrinho, Nogueira da Silva, Pedro S Cunha, Bruno Valente, Joana Feliciano, Ricardo Pimenta, Ana Sofia Delgado, Rui Cruz Ferreira
Santa Marta Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal
Background: Inappropriate settings of atrioventricular (AV) and ventriculo-ventricular (VV) intervals can be one of the factors impacting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Optimal concordance of AV and VV intervals between echocardiographic-based assessment and a device-based automatic programming with a hemodynamic sensor was investigated, together with left ventricle (LV) reverse remodeling after 6 months of regular automatic device-based optimization.
Methods: We evaluated blindly 30 systematic echocardiographic examinations during 6 months in 17 patients (12 men, 64±10 years, in sinus rhythm and New York Heart Association class III; 76% with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, LV ejection fraction [LVEF] <35%, QRS 130 milliseconds and LV dyssynchrony) implanted with the SonRtip lead and a cardioverter-defibrillator device. Dyssynchrony (AV, VV, or intraventricular) was evaluated by an experienced operator blinded to the device programming, using conventional echocardiography, tissue synchronization imaging, tissue Doppler imaging, radial strain, and 3D echocardiography.
Results: Either no AV or VV dyssynchrony (n=11; 36.7%) or a slight septal or lateral delay (n=13; 43.3%) was found in most echocardiography examinations (80%). AV or VV dyssynchrony requiring further optimization was identified in one-fifth of the examinations (20%). At 6 months, 76.5% patients were responders with LV reverse remodeling, of which 69% were super-responders (LVEF >40%). A statistically significant increase in LVEF was observed between baseline and 6 months post implant (P<0.01). One patient died from non-cardiac causes.
Conclusion: Concordance between echocardiographic methods and device-based hemodynamic sensor optimization was found in most examinations (80%) post CRT. After 6 months of systematic optimization with SonR, patients showed a statistically significant increase in LVEF, with a high rate of reverse remodeling.
Keywords: cardiac resynchronization therapy, hemodynamic sensor, atrioventricular delay, interventricular delay, reverse remodeling
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]