Measurement Precision in the Optimization of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Key result
Impedance cardiography yielded statistically significant AV and VV interval optimization data in 84% and 75% of patients, respectively, outperforming echocardiographic methods.
Why the study?
Does impedance cardiography provide more precise and statistically significant estimates for AV and VV interval optimization compared to echocardiographic methods in patients with CRT?
Population
20 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) optimization
Comparison
Impedance cardiography for atrioventricular and… vs Echocardiographic methods
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May aid CRT optimization when echo is inconclusive; hypothesis-generating and should not change practice without randomized trials.
Study Design
Type
Cross-Sectional (n=20)
Structured PICO
Does impedance cardiography provide more precise and statistically significant estimates for AV and VV interval optimization compared to echocardiographic methods in patients with CRT?
P
Population
20 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization.
E
Exposure
Impedance cardiography for atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) pacing interval optimization
C
Comparator
Echocardiographic methods (aortic velocity-time integral, mitral velocity-time integral, A-wave truncation, and septal-posterior wall motion delay)
O
Outcome
Precision and statistical significance of estimated optimum AV and VV intervalssurrogate
Impedance cardiography provides more precise and statistically significant data for AV and VV interval optimization in CRT patients compared to standard echocardiographic methods.
Cite This Study
Turcott et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=20). Impedance cardiography vs. Echocardiographic methods was evaluated on Statistically significant AV and VV interval optimization data. Impedance cardiography yielded statistically significant AV and VV interval optimization data in 84% and 75% of patients, respectively, outperforming echocardiographic methods.