Key result
FT-guided AV delay optimization yields ~19 ms longer LV filling time than Ritter's method during atrial sensing.
Why the study?
It is unclear whether the optimal atrio-ventricular delay determined by Ritter's method is identical to that determined by the maximum left ventricular filling time in patients receiving CRT.
Does the FT method improve corrected left ventricular filling time compared to Ritter's method for optimizing AV delay in patients receiving CRT?
Cross-Sectional (n=17)
Does the FT method improve corrected left ventricular filling time compared to Ritter's method for optimizing AV delay in patients receiving CRT?
Absolute Event Rate: 557% vs 538%
p-value: p=0.002
The filling time method may be superior to Ritter's method for optimizing atrioventricular delay in CRT patients by maximizing left ventricular filling time, especially during atrial pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ritter AVD may underfill LV during pacing in CRT; leaves open whether filling-time optimization improves outcomes.
Higuchi et al. (2011) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=17). FT method vs. Ritter's method was evaluated on Corrected left ventricular filling time (LVFTc) during atrial sensing (p=0.002). The FT method yielded a significantly longer corrected left ventricular filling time than Ritter's method during atrial sensing (557 vs 538 ms, p=0.002) and pacing (563 vs 532 ms, p=0.023).
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: