Key result
The Left Ventricular Automatic Threshold algorithm matched the electrophysiologist-determined pacing threshold in 99.5% of tests in patients receiving CRT devices.
Why the study?
Does a left ventricular automatic threshold algorithm accurately determine pacing thresholds compared to manual testing in patients receiving CRT devices?
RCT (n=70)
Single-blind
Randomized to either 0.4-ms or 1.0-ms pacing pulse width and test order
Does a left ventricular automatic threshold algorithm accurately determine pacing thresholds compared to manual testing in patients receiving CRT devices?
The LVAT algorithm accurately determines pacing thresholds across multiple pacing configurations and LV leads in CRT patients, which may simplify device follow-up.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports automated LV threshold testing to simplify CRT follow-up; extends validation of the algorithm across configurations in an RCT.
INTRODUCTION: Automatic pacing threshold (AT) testing may simplify device follow-up and improve device longevity. This study's objective was to evaluate the performance of a left ventricular (LV) evoked response sensing-based AT algorithm, for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. METHODS: Patients scheduled for CRT-D/P implant were enrolled. A manual step-down threshold test and a Left Ventricular Automatic Threshold (LVAT) test in each of four pacing vectors-LVTip→Can, LVTip→right ventricle (RV), = LVRing→Can, and LVRing→RV-were conducted. Patients were randomized to either 0.4-ms or 1.0-ms pacing pulse width and in the manual and LVAT test order. A blinded core lab electrophysiologist (EP) determined the threshold using the surface electrocardiogram (gold standard). RESULTS: Data from 70 patients were analyzed. Bipolar LV leads from three major manufacturers were used. A total of 273 AT tests were performed; 12 AT tests did not result in a threshold due to improper testing conditions. Of 261 eligible tests, 234 AT tests (89.6%) returned a threshold measurement. Of the 234 tests, in 233 tests (99.5%) the algorithm-determined threshold matched the EP-determined threshold for that test. A total of 16,689 capture and 526 noncapture beats were collected and the accuracy for detecting capture and noncapture were 98.5% and 99.7% with a two-sided 95% confidence level of (98.4%, 98.7%) and (99.4%, 100%), respectively. No AT threshold measurement was lower than the EP-determined threshold. CONCLUSION: In this study, the results suggest that the LVAT algorithm is accurate at determining pacing thresholds in multiple pacing configurations and a wide range of LV leads in CRT-D/P patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalahasty et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Patients scheduled for CRT-D/P implant (n=70). Left Ventricular Automatic Threshold (LVAT) algorithm vs. Manual step-down threshold test (EP-determined) was evaluated on Algorithm-determined threshold matching the EP-determined threshold. The Left Ventricular Automatic Threshold algorithm matched the electrophysiologist-determined pacing threshold in 99.5% of tests in patients receiving CRT devices.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: