4.0 Article

Improvement in acute contractility and hemodynamics with multipoint pacing via a left ventricular quadripolar pacing lead

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10840-014-9891-1

关键词

Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Biventricular pacing; Multisite pacing; Left ventricular pacing leads; Heart failure; Cardiac function; Strain

资金

  1. St. Jude Medical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A quadripolar left ventricular (LV) pacing can deliver multipoint pacing (MPP). It is unknown if this confers improved cardiac function compared to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to characterize changes in acute cardiac contractility and hemodynamics with multisite left ventricular multipoint pacing (MPP) in a prospective multicenter study in patients implanted with a CRT-defibrillator incorporating a quadripolar LV lead. The device was programmed to deliver MPP acutely pacing with eight configurations of varying timing delays. Global peak LV radial strain and LV outflow velocity time integral (LVOT VTI) were measured for conventional CRT and each MPP configuration. Out of the eight tested MPP configurations, the one that yielded the best echocardiographic measurement for each patient was defined as optimal MPP. Forty CRT recipients had complete radial strain datasets suitable for analysis. Compared to conventional CRT, the mean peak radial strain was significantly higher for the optimal MPP configuration (18.3 +/- 7.4 vs. 9.3 +/- 5.3 %, p < 0.001), and at least one MPP configuration was significantly superior (> 20 %) in 63 % of patients. LVOT VTI data were collected in a subset of 13 patients. In these patients, mean VTI was significantly higher for optimal MPP compared to conventional CRT (13.5 +/- 2.7 vs. 10.9 +/- 3.3 cm, p < 0.01). MPP delivered via a quadripolar LV lead resulted in a significant improvement in acute cardiac contractility and hemodynamics compared to conventional CRT in the majority of patients studied. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01044784.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据