Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

09-12-2015 | Original Article | Uitgave 1/2016 Open Access

Netherlands Heart Journal 1/2016

The influence of right ventricular stimulation on acute response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Tijdschrift:
Netherlands Heart Journal > Uitgave 1/2016
Auteurs:
L. Wu, G.J. de Roest, M.L. Hendriks, A.C. van Rossum, C.C. de Cock, C.P. Allaart
Belangrijke opmerkingen

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1007/​s12471-015-0770-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods and results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Onze productaanbevelingen

Netherlands Heart Journal

Het Netherlands Heart Journal wordt uitgegeven in samenwerking met de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Cardiologie en de Nederlandse Hartstichting. Het tijdschrift is Engelstalig en wordt gratis beschikbaa ...

Extra materiaal
Literatuur
Over dit artikel

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2016

Netherlands Heart Journal 1/2016 Naar de uitgave