PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 26, 2009Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology22 citationsOpen Access

Automatic Management of Left Ventricular Stimulation: Hints for Technologic Improvement

View Full Paper
MBMauro BiffiMBMatteo BertiniDSDavide Saporito

Key Result

Programming left ventricular output to threshold + 0.5 V provided 99-100% effective stimulation in 18 of 20 patients, with the threshold showing no changes on 97% of consecutive days.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=20)

Structured PICO

Does programming LV output to threshold + 0.5 V provide effective stimulation and maximize device longevity in patients with CRT-D devices?

P
Population
20 patients with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator device followed for a mean of 14 months to evaluate left ventricular threshold variability.
E
Exposure
Left ventricular (LV) output programmed as threshold + 0.5 V, upper limit 6 V, with pulse width programmed to minimize voltage multipliers
O
Outcome
Left ventricular threshold variability and algorithm performance over long termsurrogate

Programming LV output to a threshold + 0.5 V safety margin in CRT-D devices provides highly effective stimulation while potentially increasing device longevity by 25%.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We used a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator device with an algorithm for automatic verification of left ventricular (LV) stimulation to understand LV threshold variability, such as to provide hints to program the algorithm features. We also evaluated the algorithm performance over long term, and tested a stimulation setting to achieve 99% effective stimulation while maximizing device longevity. METHODS: The LV output was programmed as threshold + 0.5 V; the upper limit of LV output adjustment was 6 V at programmed pulse width. The algorithm is insensitive to the strength of the pacing pulse, thus pulse width was conveniently programmed to minimize the use of voltage multipliers in all the patients. Follow-ups occurred at 1 month, then every 3 months, for clinical assessment and manual threshold verification. The efficacy of this programming at long term was also evaluated by Holter validation of LV stimulation. RESULTS: Twenty patients were followed for 14 +/- 5 months (6-21). LV threshold showed no changes in 97% of consecutive days, whereas a 0.5-V and 1-V increase occurred, respectively, in 2.3% and 0.6%. Maximum variability of LV threshold was < or =0.5 V during 90% of the follow-up period. Our programming of LV output provided 99-100% effective stimulation in 18 of 20 patients, and 90% efficacy in two patients because of missed threshold measurements. A 25% increase of device longevity can be expected by this programming. CONCLUSIONS: LV threshold variability is truly modest. Daily update of LV threshold should be improved to ensure 100% LV stimulation by a threshold + 0.5 V safety margin. Device longevity is maximized when LV stimulation occurs below battery voltage.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Biffi et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Patients with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator device (n=20). Automatic management of left ventricular stimulation (LV output programmed as threshold + 0.5 V) was evaluated on Effective left ventricular stimulation and threshold variability. Programming left ventricular output to threshold + 0.5 V provided 99-100% effective stimulation in 18 of 20 patients, with the threshold showing no changes on 97% of consecutive days.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9725830f79e4f014b32625https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.02243.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Pacing Threshold Trends and Variability in Modern Tined Leads Assessed Using High Resolution Automatic Measurements: Conversion of Pulse Width into Voltage Thresholds1999 · 37 citations
  2. 2Atrial Threshold Variability: Implications for Automatic Atrial Stimulation Algorithms2007 · 24 citations
  3. 3Automated Left Ventricular Capture Management2007 · 36 citations
  4. 4Left ventricular pacing by automatic capture verification2007 · 15 citations
  5. 5Clinical Performance of a Ventricular Automatic Capture Verification Algorithm2005 · 22 citations