Maximizing Efficiency of Alternation Algorithms for Hemodynamic Optimization of the AV Delay of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Central venous pressure as a method of optimising atrio-ventricular delay after cardiac surgery

INTRODUCTION

Haemodynamic atrioventricular delay (AVD) optimisation has primarily focussed on signals that are not easy to acquire from a pacing system itself, such as invasive left ventricular catheterisation or arterial blood pressure (ABP). In this study, standard clinical central venous pressure (CVP) signals are tested as a potential alternative.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with a temporary pacemaker after cardiac surgery were studied. AV delay optimisation was performed by alternating between a reference AVD of 120ms and tested settings ranging from 40 to 280ms, with 8 replicates for each setting. Alongside (a) the raw data, three methods of correcting for respiration were tested: (b) limiting analysis to a respiratory cycle, (c) asymmetric least squares (ALS) and (d) discrete wavelet transform (DWT). The utility of a quality control step was tested.

RESULTS

CVP signals were a mirror image of the systolic ABP signals: The four R values were -0.674, -0.692, -0.631, -0.671 respectively (all p<0.001). With quality control, the mirror image was best for DWT (R = -0.76, p<0.001), with the CVP and ABP optima agreeing well (R = 0.78, p<0.001). The automated quality control signal correctly predicted the gap between the AVD optima calculated from ABP and CVP (R = 0.8, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Central venous pressure signals could be used to optimise AVD, because they have a reliable inverse relationship with ABP when pacemaker settings undergo protocolised testing. However, protocols need careful design to circumvent spontaneous biological variability.

A comparison of different methods to maximise signal extraction when using central venous pressure to optimise atrioventricular delay after cardiac surgery

Objective

Our group has shown that central venous pressure (CVP) can optimise atrioventricular (AV) delay in temporary pacing (TP) after cardiac surgery. However, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is influenced both by the methods used to mitigate the pressure effects of respiration and the number of heartbeats analysed. This paper systematically studies the effect of different analysis methods on SNR to maximise the accuracy of this technique.

Methods

We optimised AV delay in 16 patients with TP after cardiac surgery. Transitioning rapidly and repeatedly from a reference AV delay to different tested AV delays, we measured pressure differences before and after each transition. We analysed the resultant signals in different ways with the aim of maximising the SNR: (1) adjusting averaging window location (around versus after transition), (2) modifying window length (heartbeats analysed), and (3) applying different signal filtering methods to correct respiratory artefact.

Results

(1) The SNR was 27 % higher for averaging windows around the transition versus post-transition windows. (2) The optimal window length for CVP analysis was two respiratory cycle lengths versus one respiratory cycle length for optimising SNR for arterial blood pressure (ABP) signals. (3) Filtering with discrete wavelet transform improved SNR by 62 % for CVP measurements. When applying the optimal window length and filtering techniques, the correlation between ABP and CVP peak optima exceeded that of a single cycle length (R = 0.71 vs. R = 0.50, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

We demonstrated that utilising a specific set of techniques maximises the signal-to-noise ratio and hence the utility of this technique.

Effects of haemodynamically atrio-ventricular optimized His bundle pacing on heart failure symptoms and exercise capacity: the His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE-HF) randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial

AIMS

Excessive prolongation of PR interval impairs coupling of atrio-ventricular (AV) contraction, which reduces left ventricular pre-load and stroke volume, and worsens symptoms. His bundle pacing allows AV delay shortening while maintaining normal ventricular activation. HOPE-HF evaluated whether AV optimized His pacing is preferable to no-pacing, in a double-blind cross-over fashion, in patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, PR interval ≥200 ms and either QRS ≤140 ms or right bundle branch block.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients had atrial and His bundle leads implanted (and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead if clinically indicated) and were randomized to 6 months of pacing and 6 months of no-pacing utilizing a cross-over design. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake during symptom-limited exercise. Quality of life, LVEF and patients' holistic symptomatic preference between arms were secondary outcomes. Overall, 167 patients were randomized: 90% men, 69 ± 10 years, QRS duration 124 ± 26 ms, PR interval 249 ± 59 ms, LVEF 33 ± 9%. Neither peak oxygen uptake (+0.25 ml/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23 to +0.73, p = 0.3) nor LVEF (+0.5%, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.6, p = 0.4) changed with pacing but Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life improved significantly (-3.7, 95% CI -7.1 to -0.3, p = 0.03). Seventy-six percent of patients preferred His bundle pacing-on and 24% pacing-off (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

His bundle pacing did not increase peak oxygen uptake but, under double-blind conditions, significantly improved quality of life and was symptomatically preferred by the clear majority of patients. Ventricular pacing delivered via the His bundle did not adversely impact ventricular function during the 6 months.

Basic Principles of Hemodynamics in Pacing

Pacing therapy aims to improve overall cardiac function by normalizing cardiac electrical activation. Although hemodynamic measurements allow the impact of cardiac pacing on cardiac function to be quantified, the protocol is crucial to minimize the effect of noise and achieve greater precision. Multiple steps can be undertaken to optimize accuracy of hemodynamic measurements. These include comparing with a reference state, using an average of a set number of beats, making repeated measurements, ensuring all beats are included, and pacing at faster heart rates. These measurements can aid comparison between different pacing modalities and guide optimal programming.

Optimizing atrio-ventricular delay in pacemakers using potentially implantable physiological biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamically optimal atrioventricular (AV) delay can be derived by echocardiography or beat-by-beat blood pressure (BP) measurements, but analysis is labor intensive. Laser Doppler perfusion monitoring measures blood flow and can be incorporated into future implantable cardiac devices. We assess whether laser Doppler can be used instead of BP to optimize AV delay.

METHODS

Fifty eight patients underwent 94 AV delay optimizations with biventricular or His-bundle pacing using laser Doppler and simultaneous noninvasive beat-by-beat BP. Optimal AV delay was defined using a curve of hemodynamic response to switching from AAI (reference state) to DDD (test state) at several AV delays (40-320 ms), with automatic quality control checking precision of the optimum. Five subsequent patients underwent an extended protocol to test the impact of greater numbers of alternations on optimization quality.

RESULTS

55/94 optimizations passed quality control resulting in an optimal AV delay on laser Doppler similar to that derived by BP (median absolute deviation 12 ms). An extended protocol with increasing number of replicates consistently improved quality and reduced disagreement between laser Doppler and BP optima. With only five replicates, no optimization passed quality control, and the median absolute deviation would be 29 ms. These improved progressively until at 50 replicates, all optimizations passed quality control and the median absolute deviation was only 13 ms.

CONCLUSIONS

Laser Doppler perfusion produces hemodynamic optima equivalent to BP. Quality control can be automatic. Adding more replicates, consistently improves quality. Future implantable devices could use such methods to dynamically and reliably optimize AV delays.

Short-Term Hemodynamic and Electrophysiological Effects of Cardiac Resynchronization by Left Ventricular Septal Pacing

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is usually performed by biventricular (BiV) pacing. Previously, feasibility of transvenous implantation of a lead at the left ventricular (LV) endocardial side of the interventricular septum, referred to as LV septal (LVs) pacing, was demonstrated.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to compare the acute electrophysiological and hemodynamic effects of LVs with BiV and His bundle (HB) pacing in CRT patients.

METHODS

Temporary LVs pacing (transaortic approach) alone or in combination with right ventricular (RV) (LVs+RV), BiV, and HB pacing was performed in 27 patients undergoing CRT implantation. Electrophysiological changes were assessed using electrocardiography (QRS duration), vectorcardiography (QRS area), and multielectrode body surface mapping (standard deviation of activation times [SDAT]). Hemodynamic changes were assessed as the first derivative of LV pressure (LVdP/dtmax).

RESULTS

As compared with baseline, LVs pacing resulted in a larger reduction in QRS area (to 73 ± 22 μVs) and SDAT (to 26 ± 7 ms) than BiV (to 93 ± 26 μVs and 31 ± 7 ms; both p < 0.05) and LVs+RV pacing (to 108 ± 37 μVs; p < 0.05; and 29 ± 8 ms; p = 0.05). The increase in LVdP/dtmax was similar during LVs and BiV pacing (17 ± 10% vs. 17 ± 9%, respectively) and larger than during LVs+RV pacing (11 ± 9%; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between basal, mid-, or apical LVs levels in LVdP/dtmax and SDAT. In a subgroup of 16 patients, changes in QRS area, SDAT, and LVdP/dtmax were comparable between LVs and HB pacing.

CONCLUSIONS

LVs pacing provides short-term hemodynamic improvement and electrical resynchronization that is at least as good as during BiV and possibly HB pacing. These results indicate that LVs pacing may serve as a valuable alternative for CRT.

How to deliver personalized cardiac resynchronization therapy through the precise measurement of the acute hemodynamic response: Insights from the iSpot trial

INTRODUCTION

New pacing technologies offer a greater choice of left ventricular pacing sites and greater personalization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The effects on cardiac function of novel pacing configurations are often compared using multi-beat averages of acute hemodynamic measurements. In this analysis of the iSpot trial, we explore whether this is sufficient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The iSpot trial was an international, prospective, acute hemodynamic trial that assessed seven CRT configurations: standard CRT, MultiSpot (posterolateral vein), and MultiVein (anterior and posterior vein) pacing. Invasive and noninvasive blood pressure, and left ventricular (LV) dP/dtmax were recorded. Eight beats were recorded before and after an alternation from AAI to the tested pacing configuration and vice-versa. Eight alternations were performed for each configuration at each of the five atrioventricular delays.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients underwent the full protocol of eight alternations. Only four (16%) patients had a statistically significant >3 mm Hg improvement over conventional CRT configuration (posterolateral vein, distal electrode). However, if only one alternation was analyzed (standard multi-beat averaging protocol), 15 (60%) patients falsely appeared to have a superior nonconventional configuration. Responses to pacing were significantly correlated between the different hemodynamic measures: invasive systolic blood pressure (SBP) vs noninvasive SBP r = 0.82 (P < .001); invasive SBP vs LV dP/dt r = 0.57, r2  = 0.32 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Current standard multibeat acquisition protocols are unfortunately unable to prevent false impressions of optimality arising in individual patients. Personalization processes need to include distinct repeated transitions to the tested pacing configuration in addition to averaging multiple beats. The need is not only during research stages but also during clinical implementation.

Long-Term Effect of Different Optimizing Methods for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure: A Randomized and Controlled Pilot Study

AIM

During cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), optimized programming of the atrioventricular (AV) delay and ventricular-to-ventricular (VV) interval can lead to improved hemodynamics, symptomatic response, and left ventricular systolic function. Currently, however, there is no recommendation for the best optimization method. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of 4 different CRT optimization methods.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-four consecutive CRT patients with severe heart failure and left bundle-branch block configuration were randomly assigned into four groups to undergo AV/VV delay optimization through echocardiogram (ECHO; n = 30), electrocardiogram (ECG; n = 32), QuickOpt algorithm (n = 28), and nominal AV/VV (n = 36) groups. Patients were followed up and underwent examinations, including New York Heart Association (NYHA) cardiac functional classification, 6-min walking distance (6MWD), and echocardiography, at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. The patients' survival and clinical outcomes were compared among the four groups.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that the median survival was the same in the 4 groups: ECHO, 43 months; ECG, 44 months; QuickOpt, 44 months, and nominal, 41 months. At the 6-month follow-up, the reduction in left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was significantly less in the nominal group (-1.91 ± 2.58 mm) than that in the other three groups (ECHO: -3.70 ± 2.78 mm, p = 0.012; ECG: -3.53 ± 3.14 mm, p = 0.020; QuickOpt: -3.46 ± 2.65 mm, p = 0.032); 6MWD was significantly shorter in the nominal group (87.88 ± 34.76 m) than that in the other three groups (ECHO: 120.63 ± 56.93 m, p = 0.006; ECG: 114.97 ± 54.95 m, p = 0.020; QuickOpt: 114.57 ± 35.41 m, p = 0.027). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) significantly increased in ECHO (7.23 ± 2.76%, p = 0.010), ECG (8.50 ± 3.17%, p < 0.001), and QuickOpt (8.39 ± 2.90%, p < 0.001) compared with the nominal group (5.35 ± 2.59%). There were no significant differences among the groups in the aforementioned parameters at 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While LVEDD, LVEF, 6MWD, and NYHA were significantly improved in ECHO, ECG, and QuickOpt at 6 months, there were no significant improvements in any of the groups at 12, 24, and 48 months. These findings suggested that the long-term effect of the four CRT methods for heart failure was not significantly different.

Improving haemodynamic optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure

OBJECTIVE

Optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy using non-invasive haemodynamic parameters produces reliable optima when performed at high atrial paced heart rates. Here we investigate whether this is a result of increased heart rate or atrial pacing itself.

APPROACH

Forty-three patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy underwent haemodynamic optimization of atrioventricular (AV) delay using non-invasive beat-to-beat systolic blood pressure in three states: rest (atrial-sensing, 66  ±  11 bpm), slow atrial pacing (73  ±  12 bpm), and fast atrial pacing (94  ±  10 bpm). A 20-patient subset underwent a fourth optimization, during exercise (80  ±  11 bpm).

MAIN RESULTS

Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, quantifying information content mean  ±SE) was 0.20  ±  0.02 for resting sensed optimization, 0.45  ±  0.03 for slow atrial pacing (p   <  0.0001 versus rest-sensed), and 0.52  ±  0.03 for fast atrial pacing (p   =  0.12 versus slow-paced). 78% of the increase in ICC, from sinus rhythm to fast atrial pacing, is achieved by simply atrially pacing just above sinus rate. Atrial pacing increased signal (blood pressure difference between best and worst AV delay) from 6.5  ±  0.6 mmHg at rest to 13.3  ±  1.1 mmHg during slow atrial pacing (p   <  0.0001) and 17.2  ±  1.3 mmHg during fast atrial pacing (p   =  0.003 versus slow atrial pacing). Atrial pacing reduced noise (average SD of systolic blood pressure measurements) from 4.9  ±  0.4 mmHg at rest to 4.1  ±  0.3 mmHg during slow atrial pacing (p   =  0.28). At faster atrial pacing the noise was 4.6  ±  0.3 mmHg (p   =  0.69 versus slow-paced, p   =  0.90 versus rest-sensed). In the exercise subgroup ICC was 0.14  ±  0.02 (p   =  0.97 versus rest-sensed).

SIGNIFICANCE

Atrial pacing, rather than the increase in heart rate, contributes to ~80% of the observed information content improvement from sinus rhythm to fast atrial pacing. This is predominantly through increase in measured signal.

Evaluation of the therapeutic effects of QuickOpt optimization in Chinese patients with chronic heart failure treated by cardiac resynchronization

In this trial, long-term therapeutic effects and clinical improvements in Chinese chronic heart failure patients optimized by QuickOpt or echocardiography were compared for atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delay optimizations after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with pacing (CRT-P) or with pacing and defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy. One hundred and ninety-six subjects (50%) had dilated cardiomyopathy, 108 (27.6%) had ischemic heart disease and 112 (28.6%) were hypertensive and were randomized into QuickOpt (198) or echocardiographic optimization (control) (194) groups at ≤2-weeks post-implantation. Programmed AV/VV delay was optimized at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, specific activity scale (SAS), and the six-minute walk tests (6MWT) were evaluated by blinded researchers at 12 months. Of the QuickOpt group, LVESV decreased significantly by 24.7% ± 33.9% compared with baseline, while LVESV of Controls decreased by 25.1% ± 36.1% (P = 0.924). NYHA class, SAS and 6MWT also improved similarly in both groups at 12 months. Mortality in both groups was not significantly different (11.0% vs 7.6%, P = 0.289). However, there was a significant difference in the time required for optimization by QuickOpt compared with echocardiography (3.33 ± 3.11 vs 58.79 ± 27.03 minutes, P < 0.000).

Towards a Personalized and Dynamic CRT-D

Background: In spite of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefits, 25 – 30% of patients are still non responders. One of the possible reasons could be the non optimal atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals settings. Our aim was to exploit a numerical model of cardiovascular system for AV and VV intervals optimization in CRT.

Methods: A numerical model of the cardiovascular system CRT-dedicated was previously developed. Echocardiographic parameters, Systemic aortic pressure and ECG were collected in 20 consecutive patients before and after CRT. Patient data were simulated by the model that was used to optimize and set into the device the intervals at the baseline and at the follow up. The optimal AV and VV intervals were chosen to optimize the simulated selected variable/s on the base of both echocardiographic and electrocardiographic parameters.

Results: Intervals were different for each patient and in most cases, they changed at follow up. The model can well reproduce clinical data as verified with Bland Altman analysis and T-test (p > 0.05). Left ventricular remodeling was 38.7% and left ventricular ejection fraction increasing was 11% against the 15% and 6% reported in literature, respectively.

Conclusions: The developed numerical model could reproduce patients conditions at the baseline and at the follow up including the CRT effects. The model could be used to optimize AV and VV intervals at the baseline and at the follow up realizing a personalized and dynamic CRT. A patient tailored CRT could improve patients outcome in comparison to literature data.

Atrioventricular Optimized Direct His Bundle Pacing Improves Acute Hemodynamic Function in Patients With Heart Failure and PR Interval Prolongation Without Left Bundle Branch Block

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether heart failure patients with narrow QRS duration (or right bundle branch block) but with long PR interval gain acute hemodynamic benefit from atrioventricular (AV) optimization. We tested this with biventricular pacing and (to deliver pure AV shortening) direct His bundle pacing.

BACKGROUND

Benefits of pacing for heart failure have previously been indicated by acute hemodynamic studies and verified in outcome studies. A new target for pacing in heart failure may be PR interval prolongation, which is associated with 58% higher mortality regardless of QRS duration.

METHODS

We enrolled 16 consecutive patients with systolic heart failure, PR interval prolongation (mean, 254 ± 62 ms) and narrow QRS duration (n = 13; mean QRS duration: 119 ± 17 ms) or right bundle branch block (n = 3; mean, QRS duration: 156 ± 18 ms). We successfully delivered temporary direct His bundle pacing in 14 patients and temporary biventricular pacing in 14 participants. We performed AV optimization using invasive systolic blood pressure obtaining parabolic responses (mean R²: 0.90 for His, and 0.85 for biventricular pacing).

RESULTS

The mean increment in systolic BP compared with intrinsic ventricular conduction was 4.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI]: +1.9 to +6.2 mm Hg for His and 4.3 mm Hg [95% CI: +2.0 to +6.5 mm Hg] for biventricular pacing. QRS duration lengthened with biventricular pacing (change = +22 ms [95% CI: +18 to +25 ms]) but not with His pacing (change = +0.5 ms [95% CI: -2.6 to +3.6 ms).

CONCLUSIONS

AV-optimized pacing improves acute hemodynamic function in patients with heart failure and long PR interval without left bundle branch block. That it can be achieved by single-site His pacing shows that its mechanism is AV shortening. The improvement is ∼60% of the effect size previously reported for biventricular pacing in left bundle branch block. Randomized, blinded trials are warranted to test for long-term beneficial effects.

Evidence that conflict regarding size of haemodynamic response to interventricular delay optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy may arise from differences in how atrioventricular delay is kept constant

Aims

Whether adjusting interventricular (VV) delay changes haemodynamic efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is controversial, with conflicting results. This study addresses whether the convention for keeping atrioventricular (AV) delay constant during VV optimization might explain these conflicts.

Method and results

Twenty-two patients in sinus rhythm with existing CRT underwent VV optimization using non-invasive systolic blood pressure. Interventricular optimization was performed with four methods for keeping the AV delay constant: (i) atrium and left ventricle delay kept constant, (ii) atrium and right ventricle delay kept constant, (iii) time to the first-activated ventricle kept constant, and (iv) time to the second-activated ventricle kept constant. In 11 patients this was performed with AV delay of 120 ms, and in 11 at AV optimum. At AV 120 ms, time to the first ventricular lead (left or right) was the overwhelming determinant of haemodynamics (13.75 mmHg at ±80 ms, P < 0.001) with no significant effect of time to second lead (0.47 mmHg, P = 0.50), P < 0.001 for difference. At AV optimum, time to first ventricular lead again had a larger effect (5.03 mmHg, P < 0.001) than time to second (2.92 mmHg, P = 0.001), P = 0.02 for difference.

Conclusion

Time to first ventricular activation is the overwhelming determinant of circulatory function, regardless of whether this is the left or right ventricular lead. If this is kept constant, the effect of changing time to the second ventricle is small or nil, and is not beneficial. In practice, it may be advisable to leave VV delay at zero. Specifying how AV delay is kept fixed might make future VV delay research more enlightening.

British randomised controlled trial of AV and VV optimization ("BRAVO") study: rationale, design, and endpoints

Background

Echocardiographic optimization of pacemaker settings is the current standard of care for patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy. However, the process requires considerable time of expert staff. The BRAVO study is a non-inferiority trial comparing echocardiographic optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delay with an alternative method using non-invasive blood pressure monitoring that can be automated to consume less staff resources.

Methods/Design

BRAVO is a multi-centre, randomized, cross-over, non-inferiority trial of 400 patients with a previously implanted cardiac resynchronization device. Patients are randomly allocated to six months in each arm. In the echocardiographic arm, AV delay is optimized using the iterative method and VV delay by maximizing LVOT VTI. In the haemodynamic arm AV and VV delay are optimized using non-invasive blood pressure measured using finger photoplethysmography. At the end of each six month arm, patients undergo the primary outcome measure of objective exercise capacity, quantified as peak oxygen uptake (VO₂) on a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcome measures are echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular remodelling, quality of life score and N-terminal pro B-type Natriuretic Peptide (NT-pro BNP). The study is scheduled to complete recruitment in December 2013 and to complete follow up in December 2014.

Discussion

If exercise capacity is non-inferior with haemodynamic optimization compared with echocardiographic optimization, it would be proof of concept that haemodynamic optimization is an acceptable alternative which has the potential to be more easily implemented.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01258829

Cardiac resynchronization therapy and AV optimization increase myocardial oxygen consumption, but increase cardiac function more than proportionally

BACKGROUND

The mechanoenergetic effects of atrioventricular delay optimization during biventricular pacing ("cardiac resynchronization therapy", CRT) are unknown.

METHODS

Eleven patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB) underwent invasive measurements of left ventricular (LV) developed pressure, aortic flow velocity-time-integral (VTI) and myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO2) at 4 pacing states: biventricular pacing (with VV 0 ms) at AVD 40 ms (AV-40), AVD 120 ms (AV-120, a common nominal AV delay), at their pre-identified individualised haemodynamic optimum (AV-Opt); and intrinsic conduction (LBBB).

RESULTS

AV-120, relative to LBBB, increased LV developed pressure by a mean of 11(SEM 2)%, p=0.001, and aortic VTI by 11(SEM 3)%, p=0.002, but also increased MVO2 by 11(SEM 5)%, p=0.04. AV-Opt further increased LV developed pressure by a mean of 2(SEM 1)%, p=0.035 and aortic VTI by 4(SEM 1)%, p=0.017. MVO2 trended further up by 7(SEM 5)%, p=0.22. Mechanoenergetics at AV-40 were no different from LBBB. The 4 states lay on a straight line for Δexternal work (ΔLV developed pressure × Δaortic VTI) against ΔMVO2, with slope 1.80, significantly >1 (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Biventricular pacing and atrioventricular delay optimization increased external cardiac work done but also myocardial oxygen consumption. Nevertheless, the increase in cardiac work was ~80% greater than the increase in oxygen consumption, signifying an improvement in cardiac mechanoenergetics. Finally, the incremental effect of optimization on external work was approximately one-third beyond that of nominal AV pacing, along the same favourable efficiency trajectory, suggesting that AV delay dominates the biventricular pacing effect - which may therefore not be mainly "resynchronization".

Comparison of different invasive hemodynamic methods for AV delay optimization in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: implications for clinical trial design and clinical practice

Background

Reproducibility and hemodynamic efficacy of optimization of AV delay (AVD) of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using invasive LV dp/dt_max are unknown.

Method and results

25 patients underwent AV delay (AVD) optimisation twice, using continuous left ventricular (LV) dp/dt_max, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP). We compared 4 protocols for comparing dp/dt_max between AV delays:

Immediate absolute: mean of 10 s recording of dp/dt_max acquired immediately after programming the tested AVD,

Delayed absolute: mean of 10 s recording acquired 30 s after programming AVD,

Single relative: relative difference between reference AVD and the tested AVD,

Multiple relative: averaged difference, from multiple alternations between reference and tested AVD.

We assessed for dp/dt_max, LVSBP and LVPP, test–retest reproducibility of the optimum.

Optimization using immediate absolute dp/dt_max had poor reproducibility (SDD of replicate optima = 41 ms; R² = 0.45) as did delayed absolute (SDD 39 ms; R² = 0.50). Multiple relative had better reproducibility: SDD 23 ms, R² = 0.76, and (p < 0.01 by F test).

Compared with AAI pacing, the hemodynamic increment from CRT, with the nominal AV delay was LVSBP 2% and LVdp/dt_max 5%, while CRT with pre-determined optimal AVD gave 6% and 9% respectively.

Conclusions

Because of inevitable background fluctuations, optimization by absolute dp/dt_max has poor same-day reproducibility, unsuitable for clinical or research purposes. Reproducibility is improved by comparing to a reference AVD and making multiple consecutive measurements. More than 6 measurements would be required for even more precise optimization — and might be advisable for future study designs. With optimal AVD, instead of nominal, the hemodynamic increment of CRT is approximately doubled.

Long-term clinical effects of programmer-guided atrioventricular and interventricular delay optimization: Intracardiac electrography versus echocardiography for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure

Objectives

To compare the haemodynamic results and long-term clinical outcomes of intracardiac electrography (QuickOpt®; St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA) and echocardiography for optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delays in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Methods

Patients with CRT devices were prospectively enrolled; AV/VV delays were optimized by either QuickOpt® or echocardiography. Patients in the QuickOpt® group underwent both echocardiography and QuickOpt® optimization, and QuickOpt® AV/VV delays were used to program the CRT. All patients were followed-up for 12 months.

Results

In total, 44 patients were enrolled. There was good correlation between AV/VV delays determined by QuickOpt® ( n = 20) and echocardiography ( n = 24). QuickOpt® was significantly faster than echocardiography-guided optimization. Cardiac function, 6-min walking distance and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly and similarly improved in both groups at 6 and 12 months compared with baseline. In the QuickOpt® group, left ventricular end diastolic diameters were significantly smaller at 6 and 12 months compared with baseline.

Conclusions

QuickOpt® is a quick, convenient and easy to perform method for optimization of AV and VV delays, with a similar long-term clinical outcome to echocardiography-guided optimization.

A systematic approach to designing reliable VV optimization methodology: assessment of internal validity of echocardiographic, electrocardiographic and haemodynamic optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

In atrial fibrillation (AF), VV optimization of biventricular pacemakers can be examined in isolation. We used this approach to evaluate internal validity of three VV optimization methods by three criteria.

Methods and results

Twenty patients (16 men, age 75 ± 7) in AF were optimized, at two paced heart rates, by LVOT VTI (flow), non-invasive arterial pressure, and ECG (minimizing QRS duration). Each optimization method was evaluated for: singularity (unique peak of function), reproducibility of optimum, and biological plausibility of the distribution of optima.

The reproducibility (standard deviation of the difference, SDD) of the optimal VV delay was 10 ms for pressure, versus 8 ms (p = ns) for QRS and 34 ms (p < 0.01) for flow.

Singularity of optimum was 85% for pressure, 63% for ECG and 45% for flow (Chi² = 10.9, p < 0.005).

The distribution of pressure optima was biologically plausible, with 80% LV pre-excited (p = 0.007). The distributions of ECG (55% LV pre-excitation) and flow (45% LV pre-excitation) optima were no different to random (p = ns).

The pressure-derived optimal VV delay is unaffected by the paced rate: SDD between slow and fast heart rate is 9 ms, no different from the reproducibility SDD at both heart rates.

Conclusions

Using non-invasive arterial pressure, VV delay optimization by parabolic fitting is achievable with good precision, satisfying all 3 criteria of internal validity. VV optimum is unaffected by heart rate. Neither QRS minimization nor LVOT VTI satisfy all validity criteria, and therefore seem weaker candidate modalities for VV optimization. AF, unlinking interventricular from atrioventricular delay, uniquely exposes resynchronization concepts to experimental scrutiny.