4.1 Article

Improvement of Right Ventricular Hemodynamics with Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing during Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Journal

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages 531-+

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/pace.12854

Keywords

cardiac resynchronization therapy; ventricular contractility; endocardial pacing; biventricular acute hemodynamic response

Funding

  1. Boston Scientific
  2. British Heart Foundation [PG/11/101/29212]
  3. Wellcome Trust [WT 088641/Z/09/Z]
  4. St. Jude Medical
  5. Medtronic
  6. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guys' and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
  7. Rosetrees Trust
  8. EPSRC [EP/M012492/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. British Heart Foundation [PG/11/101/29212] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/H019898/1, EP/M012492/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular epicardial (BV-CS) or endocardial left ventricular (LV) stimulation (BV-EN) improves LV hemodynamics. The effect of CRT on right ventricular function is less clear, particularly for BV-EN. Our objective was to compare the simultaneous acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of the right and left ventricles (RV and LV) with BV-CS and BV-EN in order to determine the optimal mode of CRT delivery. Methods: Nine patients with previously implanted CRT devices successfully underwent a temporary pacing study. Pressure wires measured the simultaneous AHR in both ventricles during different pacing protocols. Conventional epicardial CRT was delivered in LV-only (LV-CS) and BV-CS configurations and compared with BV-EN pacing in multiple locations using a roving decapolar catheter. Results: Best BV-EN (optimal AHR of all LV endocardial pacing sites) produced a significantly greater RV AHR compared with LV-CS and BV-CS pacing (P < 0.05). RV AHR had a significantly increased standard deviation compared to LV AHR (P < 0.05) with a weak correlation between RV and LV AHR (Spearman r(s) = -0.06). Compromised biventricular optimization, whereby RV AHR was increased at the expense of a smaller decrease in LV AHR, was achieved in 56% of cases, all with BV-EN pacing. Conclusions: BV-EN pacing produces significant increases in both LV and RV AHR, above that achievable with conventional epicardial pacing. RV AHR cannot be used as a surrogate for optimizing LV AHR; however, compromised biventricular optimization is possible. The beneficial effect of endocardial LV pacing on RV function may have important clinical benefits beyond conventional CRT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available