Key result
Impedance cardiography yields an 18-ms shorter optimal AV delay than echocardiography, with mismatch predicted by postoperative MR.
Why the study?
Optimizing AV and VV delays improves CRT outcomes, but UCG optimization requires high technical expertise; impedance cardiography may offer an alternative.
Does impedance cardiography provide similar atrioventricular and interventricular delay optimization compared to ultrasonic echocardiography in patients with CRT devices?
Comparison
Optimization with ICG vs UCG
Design
Retrospective analysis
Follow-up
1 week after implantation
Authors
Loading...
ICG should not yet replace echocardiography for CRT AV optimization with postoperative MR; leaves open validation in larger prospective cohorts without MR.
Observational (n=42)
Does impedance cardiography provide similar atrioventricular and interventricular delay optimization compared to ultrasonic echocardiography in patients with CRT devices?
Absolute Event Rate: 128% vs 146%
p-value: p=0.018
Impedance cardiography is a rapid, noninvasive tool for CRT optimization that yields shorter AV delays than echocardiography, but it may be unreliable in patients with moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation.
Ogawa et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (n=42). Impedance cardiography (ICG) vs. Ultrasonic echocardiography (UCG) was evaluated on Optimized atrioventricular delay (AVD) in milliseconds (p=0.018). Impedance cardiography yielded a significantly shorter optimal AV delay than echocardiography (128 vs 146 ms, P=0.018), with postoperative mitral regurgitation predicting mismatch between the methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: