Why the study?
Does optimization of atrioventricular and interventricular delays improve cardiac output in patients with chronic heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Does optimization of atrioventricular and interventricular delays improve cardiac output in patients with chronic heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hemodynamic improvement during biventricular stimulation is dependent on optimized AVD and VVD, with LV preceding RV by 4-12 ms being the most optimal setting.
Restoration of the atrioventricular (AVD) and interventricular (VVD) delays increases the hemodynamic benefit conferred by biventricular (BiV) stimulation. This study compared the effects of different AVD and VVD on cardiac output (CO) during three stimulation modes: BiV-LV = left ventricle (LV) preceding right ventricle (RV) by 4 ms; BiV-RV = RV preceding LV by 4 ms; LVP = single-site LV pacing. We studied 19 patients with chronic heart failure due to ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, QRS >/= 150 ms, mean LV end-diastolic diameter = 78 +/- 7 mm, and mean LV ejection fraction = 21 +/- 3%. CO was estimated by Doppler echocardiographic velocity time integral formula with sample volume placed in the LV outflow tract. Sets of sensed-AVDs (S-AVD) 90-160 ms, paced-AVDs (P-AVD) 120-160 ms, and VVDs 4-20 ms were used. BiV-RV resulted in lower CO than BiV-LV. S-AVD 120 ms and P-AVD 140 ms caused the most significant increase in CO for all three pacing modes. LVP produced a similar increase in CO as BiV stimulation; however, AV sequential pacing was associated with a nonsignificantly higher CO during LVP than with BiV stimulation. CO during BiV stimulation was the highest when LV preceded RV, and VVD ranged between 4 and 12 ms. The most negative effect on CO was observed when RV preceded LV by 4 ms. Hemodynamic improvement during BiV stimulation was dependent both on optimized AVD and VVD. LV preceding RV by 4-12 ms was the most optimal. Advancement of the RV was not beneficial in the majority of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riedlbauchová et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: