Key result
Optimizing the V-V interval with the IEGM method yielded a lower mean LVdP/dt(MAX) than invasive optimization (920 vs 947 mmHg/s; P<0.0001), offering no hemodynamic benefit over simultaneous pacing.
Why the study?
Does the calculated optimal V-V interval derived from intracardiac electrograms improve hemodynamic results compared to invasive measurement or simultaneous BiV pacing in heart failure patients with CRT?
Population
32 patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation.
Comparison
Calculated optimal V-V interval derived from… vs Optimized V-V interval determined by invasive…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
IEGM V-V optimization lacks hemodynamic benefit in CRT and should not alter practice; leaves open whether non-invasive alternatives warrant prospective trials.
Observational (n=32)
Does the calculated optimal V-V interval derived from intracardiac electrograms improve hemodynamic results compared to invasive measurement or simultaneous BiV pacing in heart failure patients with CRT?
Absolute Event Rate: 920% vs 947%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Optimizing the V-V interval with the IEGM method does not yield better hemodynamic results than simultaneous BiV pacing and does not correlate with optimal settings determined invasively.
Gelder et al. (2008) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=32). V-V interval optimization using intracardiac electrograms (IEGM) vs. Invasive measurement of LVdP/dt(MAX) was evaluated on Mean value of LVdP/dt(MAX) (p=<0.0001). Optimizing the V-V interval with the IEGM method yielded a lower mean LVdP/dt(MAX) than invasive optimization (920 vs 947 mmHg/s; P<0.0001), offering no hemodynamic benefit over simultaneous pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: