4.8 Article

Effect of resynchronization therapy stimulation site on the systolic function of heart failure patients

Journal

CIRCULATION
Volume 104, Issue 25, Pages 3026-3029

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hc5001.102229

Keywords

heart failure; bundle-branch block; pacing; contractility; electrical stimulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves systolic function in heart failure patients with ventricular conduction delay by stimulating the left ventricle (LV) or both ventricles (biventricular, BV). Optimal LV,site selection is of major clinical interest for CRT device implantation however, the dependence of hemodynamics on LV stimulation site has not been established, Thus. the objective of this study was to compare the hemodynamic response to CRT for 2 LV coronary vein sites: the free wall and anterior wall. Methods and Results-A total of 30 patients (mean NYHA class, 2.7 mean QRS interval, 152 ms; mean PR interval, 194 ms) enrolled in the PATH-CHF-II trial were studied. CRT was administered with LV and BV stimulation in VDD mode at 4 AV delays. LV stimulation was at the lateral free wall or anterior wall, whereas right ventricular stimulation was fixed near the apex. LV+dP/dt(max), and aortic pulse pressure changes from baseline during CRT were compared for LV sites. Free wall sites with LV and BV stimulation yielded significantly larger LV+dP/dt(max), (14% versus 6%, P <0.001 for LV 12% versus 5%, P <0.001 for BV) and pulse pressure (8% versus 4%, P <0.001 for LV; 9% versus 5%, P <0.001 for BV) compared with anterior sites. In one third of patients, CRT at free wall sites increased LV+dP/dt(max), whereas it decreased at anterior sites over most AV delays. Conclusion-CRT with LV free wall stimulation produced significantly better LV systolic performance compared with anterior stimulation. Further studies are warranted to prove the clinical superiority of the LV free wall as a site for long-term 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available