Key result
Mechanical inter-atrial delay was the only independent predictor of the AV interval associated with the best aortic flow velocity time integral (R2 = 0.77; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does the difference between electrical and mechanical atrial delays affect the effectiveness of IEGM-based AV delay optimization in CRT patients?
Observational (n=23)
Does the difference between electrical and mechanical atrial delays affect the effectiveness of IEGM-based AV delay optimization in CRT patients?
Effect estimate: R2 0.77
p-value: p=<0.001
Mechanical inter-atrial delay plays a primary role in determining optimal AV delay in CRT, suggesting caution when using solely IEGM-based optimization methods like QuickOpt.
Supports caution with IEGM-only AV optimization in CRT; hypothesis-generating for mechanical inter-atrial delay assessment.
AIMS: It has been shown that atrioventricular (AV) delay optimization improves cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. Recently, an automatic algorithm (QuickOpt™, St Jude Medical), able to quickly identify the individual optimal AV interval, has been developed. The algorithm suggests an AV delay based on atrial intracavitary electrogram (IEGM) duration. We hypothesized that the difference between electrical and mechanical atrial delays could affect the effectiveness of QuickOpt method. The aim of this study was to test this hypothesis in 23 CRT patients who were recipients of St. Jude Medical devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using echocardiography, aortic flow velocity time integral (VTI) was evaluated at baseline, at QuickOpt suggested AV delay and after reducing it by 25 and 50%. Mechanical inter-atrial delay (MIAD) derived from echo/Doppler and electrical inter-atrial delay (EIAD) derived from IEGM were also analysed. Optimal AV delay was identified by the maximal VTI. In 11 patients (Group 1) the maximal VTI was achieved at the AV delay suggested by the algorithm, in 6 patients (Group 2) after a 25% reduction, and in 6 patients (Group 3) after a 50% reduction. While EIAD was similar among the three groups, MIAD was significantly different (P< 0.001). MIAD was longer than EIAD in Group 1 (P= 0.028) and shorter than EIAD in Groups 2 (P= 0.028) and 3. (P< 0.001). Mechanical inter-atrial delay was the only independent predictor of the AV interval associated with the best VTI (R(2) = 0.77; P< 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results show that MIAD plays the main role in determining the optimal AV delay, thus caution should be taken when optimizing AV by IEGM-based methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Porciani et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (n=23). QuickOpt automatic AV delay optimization vs. 25% and 50% reductions in QuickOpt AV delay was evaluated on Optimal AV delay identified by maximal aortic flow velocity time integral (VTI) (R2 0.77, p=<0.001). Mechanical inter-atrial delay was the only independent predictor of the AV interval associated with the best aortic flow velocity time integral (R2 = 0.77; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: