Key result
The peak endocardial acceleration method yielded slightly but significantly longer optimal AV delays compared to echocardiography in DDD (202 vs 179 ms) and VDD (145 vs 124 ms) modes (P<0.05).
Why the study?
Does the peak endocardial acceleration method correlate with the echocardiographic method for determining optimal atrioventricular delay in patients with complete heart block?
Population
19 patients implanted with the BEST-Living system for complete heart block
Comparison
Peak endocardial acceleration method for… vs Echocardiographic method for determining optimal…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Modest AV delay differences by method should not yet change practice; leaves open prospective validation of automated optimization.
Cross-Sectional (n=19)
Does the peak endocardial acceleration method correlate with the echocardiographic method for determining optimal atrioventricular delay in patients with complete heart block?
Effect estimate: r = 0.78
p-value: p=<0.05
The peak endocardial acceleration method correlates well with echocardiography for determining optimal atrioventricular delay, suggesting pacemaker software could automatically optimize AVD.
Philippe Ritter (1999) conducted a cross-sectional in Complete heart block (n=19). Peak endocardial acceleration (PEA) method vs. Echocardiographic (Echo) method was evaluated on Optimal atrioventricular delay (AVD) (r = 0.78, p=<0.05). The peak endocardial acceleration method yielded slightly but significantly longer optimal AV delays compared to echocardiography in DDD (202 vs 179 ms) and VDD (145 vs 124 ms) modes (P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: