Why the study?
Does patient-tailored biventricular pacing using the SyncAV algorithm improve QRS narrowing compared to nominal simultaneous biventricular pacing in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Observational (n=75)
Does patient-tailored biventricular pacing using the SyncAV algorithm improve QRS narrowing compared to nominal simultaneous biventricular pacing in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
An automatic device-based algorithm (SyncAV) that adjusts paced AV delay to intrinsic conduction significantly improves QRS narrowing during CRT compared to nominal simultaneous BiV pacing.
Background QRS narrowing following cardiac resynchronization therapy with biventricular (BiV) or left ventricular (LV) pacing is likely affected by patient‐specific conduction characteristics ( PR , qLV, LV ‐paced propagation interval), making a universal programming strategy likely ineffective. We tested these factors using a novel, device‐based algorithm (Sync AV ) that automatically adjusts paced atrioventricular delay (default or programmable offset) according to intrinsic atrioventricular conduction. Methods and Results Seventy‐five patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (age 66±11 years; 65% male; 32% with ischemic cardiomyopathy; LV ejection fraction 28±8%; QRS duration 162±16 ms) with intact atrioventricular conduction (PR interval 194±34, range 128–300 ms), left bundle branch block, and optimized LV lead position were studied at implant. QRS duration ( QRS d) reduction was compared for the following pacing configurations: nominal simultaneous BiV (Mode I: paced/sensed atrioventricular delay=140/110 ms), BiV+Sync AV with 50 ms offset (Mode II ), BiV+Sync AV with offset that minimized QRS d (Mode III ), or LV ‐only pacing+Sync AV with 50 ms offset (Mode IV ). The intrinsic QRS d (162±16 ms) was reduced to 142±17 ms (−11.8%) by Mode I, 136±14 ms (−15.6%) by Mode IV , and 132±13 ms (−17.8%) by Mode II . Mode III yielded the shortest overall QRS d (123±12 ms, −23.9% [ P <0.001 versus all modes]) and was the only configuration without QRS d prolongation in any patient. QRS narrowing occurred regardless of QRS d, PR , or LV ‐paced intervals, or underlying ischemic disease. Conclusions Post‐implant electrical optimization in already well‐selected patients with left bundle branch block and optimized LV lead position is facilitated by patient‐tailored BiV pacing adjusted to intrinsic atrioventricular timing using an automatic device–based algorithm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varma et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=75). BiV+SyncAV with offset that minimized QRSd (Mode III) vs. Nominal simultaneous BiV (Mode I) was evaluated on QRS duration (QRSd) (-23.9% reduction, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: