Acute performance evaluation of a new ventricular automatic capture algorithm.

AIMS: This study evaluated the acute clinical performance of a new ventricular automatic capture algorithm developed to work with all lead types and pacing vectors. METHODS AND RESULTS: During regular pacemaker implant or replacement, AutoThreshold and manual threshold tests were performed in ventricular unipolar (UP) and bipolar (BP, if applicable) pacing using a customized external prototype INSIGNIA pacemaker. The success rate and accuracy of two different modes (commanded and ambulatory) of the automatic capture algorithm were used to evaluate the performance. Loss-of-capture events (two consecutive non-captured beats without backup pacing) were used to assess safety. Data of 53 patients (33 DDD/20 VVI) from four medical centres were analysed. Tested leads included 43 BP and 10 UP from nine manufacturers, and seven had electrodes with low polarization. The rate of successful commanded and ambulatory AutoThreshold tests was 96 and 94%, respectively, with an average absolute threshold difference compared with manual threshold of < 0.1 V at 0.4 ms (commanded 0.07 +/- 0.07 V and ambulatory 0.08 +/- 0.07 V). There was no significant difference in performance between UP/BP pacing, polarization, and lead type. No loss-of-capture event was observed. CONCLUSION: When successful, the ventricular automatic capture algorithm accurately determined pacing thresholds in either a UP or BP pacing configuration among all leads tested.

Short-term effects of right-left heart sequential cardiac resynchronization in patients with heart failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, and atrioventricular nodal block.

BACKGROUND: Single-site ventricular pacing in patients with heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and severe atrioventricular (AV) nodal block risks the generation of discoordinate contraction. Whether altering the site of stimulation can offset this detrimental effect and what role sequential right ventricular-left ventricular (RV-LV) stimulation might play in such patients remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine subjects with heart failure (ejection fraction, 14% to 30%), atrial fibrillation, and AV block were studied by pressure-volume analysis. Ventricular stimulation was applied to the RV (apex and outflow tract), LV free wall, and biventricular (BiV) at 80 and 120 bpm. BiV improved systolic function more than either site alone (dP/dt(max), 810+/-83, 924+/-98, 983+/-102 mm Hg/s for RV, LV, BiV, respectively; P<0.05), although LV pacing was significantly better than RV pacing. However, only BiV improved diastolic function (isovolumic relaxation) over RV or LV alone. Similar results were obtained for both heart rates. RV pacing site did not alter the BiV effect, and concomitant stimulation of both RV sites did not improve function over each alone. Finally, varying RV-LV delay revealed optimal responses with simultaneous pacing. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous BiV pacing acutely enhances both systolic and diastolic function over single-site RV or LV pacing in congestive heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation and advanced AV block. Sequential RV-LV stimulation offers minimal benefit on average and should perhaps be considered only in targeted subsets such as nonresponding patients.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization by finger plethysmography.

OBJECTIVES: We tested a simple noninvasive method for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) optimization using standard finger photoplethysmography (FPPG). BACKGROUND: CRT can increase left ventricular cardiac output in patients with heart failure and ventricular conduction delay. Optimal therapy delivery depends on an appropriate AV delay. Multiple invasive and noninvasive methods have been attempted to identify patients and the best AV delay for CRT, but all suffer from a combination of high patient risk, cost, complexity, and low reproducibility. METHODS: FPPG and invasive aortic pressure data were simultaneously collected from 57 heart failure patients during intrinsic rhythm alternating with very brief periods of pacing at 4 to 5 AV delays. After correcting data for artifacts, the median percentage responses for each AV delay were classified as positive, negative, or neutral compared to baseline (Wilcoxon rank test). RESULTS: FPPG correctly identified positive aortic pulse pressure responses with 71% sensitivity (95% CI: 60-80%) and 90% specificity (95% CI: 84-94%) and negative aortic pulse pressure responses with 57% sensitivity (95% CI: 44-69%) and 96% specificity (95% CI: 91-98%). The magnitude of FPPG changes were strongly correlated with positive aortic pulse pressure changes (R(2) = 0.73, P < .0001) but less well correlated with negative aortic pulse pressure changes (R(2) = 0.43, P < .0001). FPPG selected 78% of the patients having positive aortic pulse pressure changes to CRT and identified the AV delay giving maximum aortic pulse pressure change in all selected patients. CONCLUSIONS: FPPG can provide a simple noninvasive method for identifying significant changes in aortic pulse pressure with high specificity, including identifying patients in whom aortic pulse pressure increases with CRT and the AV delay giving the maximum aortic pulse pressure.