Why the study?
Does chronic cardiac resynchronization therapy alter the optimal left ventricular pacing site and AV/VV delays compared to the acute post-implant phase in computational models?
Does chronic cardiac resynchronization therapy alter the optimal left ventricular pacing site and AV/VV delays compared to the acute post-implant phase in computational models?
Computational biophysical modeling suggests that optimal left ventricular pacing locations and device settings determined at the time of CRT implant largely remain optimal despite chronic cardiac remodeling.
Acute optimization largely persists in models; leaves open translation to human CRT remodeling.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac anatomy and function adapt in response to chronic cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The effects of these changes on the optimal left ventricle (LV) lead location and timing delay settings have yet to be fully explored. OBJECTIVE: To predict the effects of chronic CRT on the optimal LV lead location and device timing settings over time. METHODS: Biophysical computational cardiac models were generated for 3 patients, immediately post-implant (ACUTE) and after at least 6 months of CRT (CHRONIC). Optimal LV pacing area and device settings were predicted by pacing the ACUTE and CHRONIC models across the LV epicardium (49 sites each) with a range of 9 pacing settings and simulating the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of the heart. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the distribution of the AHR in the ACUTE and CHRONIC models (P < 0.0005 in all cases). The site delivering the maximal AHR shifted location between the ACUTE and CHRONIC models but provided a negligible improvement (<2%). The majority of the acute optimal LV pacing regions (76-100%) and device settings (76-91%) remained optimal chronically. CONCLUSION: Optimization of the LV pacing location and device settings were important at the time of implant, with a reduced benefit over time, where the majority of the acute optimal LV pacing region and device settings remained optimal with chronic CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: