Key result
The adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) algorithm provided similar cardiac performance to manual echo-optimization during exercise, with high concordance in LVOT-VTI (r=0.94, P<0.0008).
Why the study?
An adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy algorithm enables continuous CRT optimization, but there are few algorithmic data on the effect of changes during exercise.
Does the adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) algorithm maintain optimal hemodynamics compared to manual echocardiographic optimization during exercise in patients with heart failure?
Observational (n=27)
Does the adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) algorithm maintain optimal hemodynamics compared to manual echocardiographic optimization during exercise in patients with heart failure?
Effect estimate: r=0.94
p-value: p=<0.0008
May support automated CRT during exercise in HF; leaves open larger randomized outcome trials.
BACKGROUND: An adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) algorithm has been described for synchronized left ventricular (LV) pacing and continuous optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, there are few algorithmic data on the effect of changes during exercise. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 27 patients with availability of the aCRT algorithm. Eligible patients were manually programmed to optimal atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delays by using echocardiograms at rest or during 2 stages of supine bicycle exercise. We compared the maximum cardiac output between manual echo-optimization and aCRT-on during each phase. After initiating exercise, the optimal AV delay progressively shortened (P<0.05) with incremental exercise levels. The manual-optimized settings and aCRT resulted in similar cardiac performance, as demonstrated by a high concordance correlation coefficient between the LV outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT-VTI) during each exercise stage (Ex.1: r=0.94 P<0.0008, Ex.2: r=0.88 P<0.001, respectively). Synchronized LV-only pacing in patients with normal AV conduction could provide a higher LVOT-VTI as compared with manual-optimized conventional biventricular pacing at peak exercise (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The aCRT algorithm was physiologically sound during exercise by patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kasagawa et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=27). Adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) algorithm vs. Manual echo-optimization was evaluated on Maximum cardiac output (LV outflow tract velocity time integral) (r=0.94, p=<0.0008). The adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) algorithm provided similar cardiac performance to manual echo-optimization during exercise, with high concordance in LVOT-VTI (r=0.94, P<0.0008).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: