Key result
Electrogram-guided AV optimization improves hemodynamics over ventricular synchrony alone, increasing AoVTI by ~1.5 cm.
Why the study?
AV delay optimization strategies based on AV synchrony or ventricular synchrony may be discordant in CRT patients, necessitating a method to integrate both for maximal resynchronization.
Does an electrogram-guided AV delay optimization algorithm improve hemodynamics compared to optimization by AV synchrony or ventricular synchrony alone in patients with CRT?
Does an electrogram-guided AV delay optimization algorithm improve hemodynamics compared to optimization by AV synchrony or ventricular synchrony alone in patients with CRT?
Mean Difference: 1.52
p-value: p=<0.001
An electrogram-guided AV delay optimization algorithm estimating the maximal integrative effects of AV and ventricular resynchronization improves hemodynamics in CRT patients with discordant optimal AV and ventricular synchrony delays.
May support electrogram-guided AV optimization in select CRT patients; leaves open whether it improves clinical outcomes in randomized trials.
Background:Atrioventricular (AV) delay could affect AV and ventricular synchrony in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Strategies to optimize AV delay according to optimal AV synchrony (AVopt-AV) or ventricular synchrony (AVopt-V) would potentially be in discordant. This study aimed to explore a new AV delay optimization algorithm guided by electrograms to get the maximum integrative effects of AV and ventricular resynchronization (opt-AV).Methods:Forty-nine patients with CRT were enrolled. AVopt-AV was measured through the Ritter method. AVopt-V was obtained by yielding the narrowest QRS. The opt-AV was considered to be AVopt-AV or AVopt-V when their difference was <20ms, and to be the AV delay with the maximal aortic velocity-time integral between AVopt-AV and AVopt-V when their difference was >20ms.Results:The results showed sensing/pacing AVopt-AV (SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV) were correlated with atrial activation time (Pend-As/ Pend-Ap)( P<0.05 ). Sensing/pacing AVopt-V (SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V) were correlated with the intrinsic AV conduction time (As-Vs/Ap-Vs) (P<0.01). The percentages of patients with more than 20ms differences between SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V were 62.9% and 57.1%, respectively. Among them, the opt-AV were linearly correlated with SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V. The sensing opt-AV (opt-SAV)=0.1×SAVopt-AV+0.4×SAVopt-V+70ms (R2=0.665, P<0.01) and the pacing opt-AV (opt-PAV)=0.25×PAVopt-AV+0.5×PAVopt-V+30ms (R2=0.560, P<0.01).Conclusion:The SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V were correlated with the atrial activation time and the intrinsic AV conduction interval respectively. Almost half of patients had a >20ms difference between SAVopt-AV/PAVopt-AV and SAVopt-V/PAVopt-V. The opt-AV could be estimated based on electrogram parameters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2021) studied Heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (n=49). Electrographic AV optimization algorithm (opt-AV) vs. AV optimization based on optimal AV synchrony (AVopt-AV) or ventricular synchrony (AVopt-V) was evaluated on Aortic velocity-time integral (AoVTI) difference between opt-SAV and SAVopt-V (MD 1.52 cm, p=<0.001). An electrogram-guided atrioventricular optimization algorithm significantly improved hemodynamics compared to optimization based solely on ventricular synchrony, increasing the aortic velocity-time integral by 1.52 cm (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: