Site-specific differences in latency intervals during biventricular pacing: impact on paced QRS morphology and echo-optimized V-V interval.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in latency intervals during right ventricular (RV) pacing and left ventricular (LV) pacing from the (postero-)lateral cardiac vein in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients and their relationship to echo-optimized interventricular (V-V) intervals and paced QRS morphology. METHODS: We recorded digital 12-lead electrocardiograms in 40 CRT patients during RV, LV, and biventricular pacing at three output settings. Stimulus-to-earliest QRS deflection (latency) intervals were measured in all leads. Echocardiographic atrioventricular (AV) and V-V optimization was performed using aortic velocity time integrals. RESULTS: Latency intervals were longer during LV (34 ± 17, 29 ± 15, 28 ± 15 ms) versus RV apical pacing (17 ± 8, 15 ± 8, 13 ± 7 ms) for threshold, threshold ×3, and maximal output, respectively (P < 0.001), and shortened with increased stimulus strength (P < 0.05). The echo-optimized V-V interval was 58 ± 31 ms in five of 40 (12%) patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms compared to 29 ± 20 ms in 35 patients with LV latency < 40 ms (P < 0.01). During simultaneous biventricular pacing, four of five (80%) patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms exhibited a left bundle branch block (LBBB) pattern in lead V(1) compared to three of 35 (9%) patients with LV latency < 40 ms (P < 0.01). After optimization, all five patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms registered a dominant R wave in lead V(1) . CONCLUSIONS: LV pacing from the lateral cardiac vein is associated with longer latency intervals than endocardial RV pacing. LV latency causes delayed LV activation and requires V-V interval adjustment to improve hemodynamic response to CRT. Patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms most often display an LBBB pattern in lead V(1) during simultaneous biventricular pacing, but a right bundle branch block after V-V interval optimization.

AV junctional ablation allowing more effective delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with intra- and interatrial conduction delay.

We report two patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices and evidence of refractory heart failure in whom impaired intraatrial conduction in one patient, and interatrial conduction in the other, prohibited optimization of the atrioventricular (AV) timing sequence. The patient with intraatrial conduction delay exhibited late right atrial sensing and latency during right atrial pacing that required programming of a short-sensed AV delay and long-paced AV delay (wide differential AV delay). In both patients AV junctional ablation and echocardiography-guided device optimization significantly improved heart failure.

Latency during left ventricular pacing from the lateral cardiac veins: a cause of ineffectual biventricular pacing.

We report three patients with cardiomyopathy and pronounced stimulus to QRS latency during left ventricular (LV) pacing from an epicardial cardiac vein. Delayed LV activation during simultaneous biventricular pacing produced an electrocardiographic pattern dominated by right ventricular stimulation. Hemodynamic parameters improved immediately after advancing LV stimulation (in one patient) or pacing the LV only (in two patients) coupled with dramatic improvement of heart failure symptoms.