Key result
Echo-guided AV delay optimization methods yield markedly divergent timing intervals across parameters.
Why the study?
Different methods for echo/Doppler atrioventricular delay optimization in patients with DDD pacemakers may yield different optimal AVDs, but their impact on systolic and diastolic performance is unclear.
Do different echo/Doppler methods (CO, FT, MPI) for atrioventricular delay optimization yield different optimal AVDs and affect systolic and diastolic performance in patients with DDD pacemakers?
Cross-Sectional (n=25)
Do different echo/Doppler methods (CO, FT, MPI) for atrioventricular delay optimization yield different optimal AVDs and affect systolic and diastolic performance in patients with DDD pacemakers?
Different echo/Doppler methods yield different optimal atrioventricular delays, but MPI optimization achieves high cardiac output combined with advantageous isovolumic contraction and relaxation phases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Different AVD optimization methods yield comparable hemodynamics; leaves open the preferred echo parameter for routine DDD programming.
Porciani et al. (2004) conducted a cross-sectional in Third-degree AV block (n=25). Echo/Doppler AVD optimization methods (CO, FT, MPI) was evaluated on Optimal atrioventricular delay (AVD) derived from CO, FT, and MPI. Echo/Doppler optimization using cardiac output, filling time, and myocardial performance index yielded significantly different optimal atrioventricular delays (148±36, 116±34, and 127±33 ms, respectively).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: