Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12471-015-0770-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The contribution of right ventricular (RV) stimulation to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) remains controversial. RV stimulation might be associated with adverse haemodynamic effects, dependent on intrinsic right bundle branch conduction, presence of scar, RV function and other factors which may partly explain non-response to CRT. This study investigates to what degree RV stimulation modulates response to biventricular (BiV) stimulation in CRT candidates and which baseline factors, assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, determine this modulation.
Forty-one patients (24 (59 %) males, 67 ± 10 years, QRS 153 ± 22 ms, 21 (51 %) ischaemic cardiomyopathy, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction 25 ± 7 %), who successfully underwent temporary stimulation with pacing leads in the RV apex (RVapex) and left ventricular posterolateral (PL) wall were included. Stroke work, assessed by a conductance catheter, was used to assess acute haemodynamic response during baseline conditions and RVapex, PL (LV) and PL+RVapex (BiV) stimulation.
Compared with baseline, stroke work improved similarly during LV and BiV stimulation (∆+ 51 ± 42 % and ∆+ 48 ± 47 %, both p < 0.001), but individual response showed substantial differences between LV and BiV stimulation. Multivariate analysis revealed that RV ejection fraction (β = 1.01, p = 0.02) was an independent predictor for stroke work response during LV stimulation, but not for BiV stimulation. Other parameters, including atrioventricular delay and scar presence and localisation, did not predict stroke work response in CRT.
The haemodynamic effect of addition of RVapex stimulation to LV stimulation differs widely among patients receiving CRT. Poor RV function is associated with poor response to LV but not BiV stimulation.
(DOCX 286 kb)12471_2015_770_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Lumens J, Ploux S, Strik M, et al. Comparative electromechanical and hemodynamic effects of left ventricular and biventricular pacing in dyssynchronous heart failure: electrical resynchronization versus left-right ventricular interaction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:2395–403. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Surawicz B, Childers R, Deal BJ, et al. AHA/ACCF/HRS recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part III: intraventricular conduction disturbances: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society. Endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:976–81. PubMedCrossRef
Auricchio A, Stellbrink C, Block M, et al. Effect of pacing chamber and atrioventricular delay on acute systolic function of paced patients with congestive heart failure. The Pacing Therapies for Congestive Heart Failure Study Group. The Guidant Congestive Heart Failure Research Group. Circulation. 1999;99:2993–3001. PubMedCrossRef
Barold SS, Ilercil A, Herweg B. Echocardiographic optimization of the atrioventricular and interventricular intervals during cardiac resynchronization. Europace. 2008;10(Suppl 3):iii88–95. PubMed
- The influence of right ventricular stimulation on acute response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy
G.J. de Roest
A.C. van Rossum
C.C. de Cock
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum