Upgrading to biventricular pacing guided by pressure-volume loop analysis during implantation.

INTRODUCTION: cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may improve prognosis in patients with chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing, and optimal lead position can decrease nonresponders. We evaluated the clinical and echocardiographic response to CRT in patients with previous chronic RV pacing, using pressure-volume loop analyses to determine the optimal left ventricular (LV) lead position during implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this single-blinded, randomized, controlled crossover study, 40 patients with chronic RV apical pacing and symptoms of heart failure, decreased LV ejection fraction (LVEF) or dyssynchrony were included. During implantation, stroke work (SW), LVEF, cardiac output, and LV dP/dt(max) were assessed by a conductance catheter. Clinical and echocardiographic response was studied during a 3-month period of RV pacing (RV period, LV lead inactive) and a 3-month period of biventricular pacing (CRT period). At the optimal LV lead position, SW (37 ± 41%), LVEF (16 ± 13%), cardiac output (29 ± 16%), and LV dP/dt(max) increased (11 ± 11%) significantly during biventricular pacing compared to baseline. Additional benefit could be achieved by pressure-volume loop guided selection of the best left-sided pacing location. RV outflow tract pacing did not improve hemodynamics. During follow-up, symptoms improved during CRT, VO(2,max) increased 10% and significant improvements in LVEF, LV volumes, and mitral regurgitation were observed as compared to the RV period. CONCLUSIONS: CRT in patients with chronic RV pacing causes significant improvement of both LV function as measured by pressure-volume loops during implantation and clinical and echocardiographic improvement during follow-up. Pressure-volume loops during implantation may facilitate selection of the most optimal pacing site.

Pressure-volume loop analysis during implantation of biventricular pacemaker/cardiac resynchronization therapy device to optimize right and left ventricular pacing sites.

AIMS: To evaluate the clinical utility of pressure-volume loop analyses during pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantations to assess the optimal right ventricular (RV) and/or left ventricular (LV) lead position. METHODS AND RESULTS: 29 patients with heart failure and chronic RV apical pacing were studied. Stroke work (SW), LV ejection fraction (LVEF), cardiac output (CO), and LV dP/dt(max) were assessed using a conductance catheter in the LV during RV apical, RV outflow tract, single-site LV, and biventricular pacing at different left-sided pacing locations. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 34.3 +/- 9.8%. Compared with baseline, RV outflow tract pacing showed a small increase of 4.0 +/- 6.4% in LV dP/dt(max) and no improvement in SW, LVEF, or CO. In the optimal biventricular configuration, SW increased 39 +/- 41%, LVEF increased 22 +/- 13%, CO increased 16 +/- 16%, and LV dP/dt(max) increased 10 +/- 11% (all P < 0.05). In 45% of the patients, the optimal LV lead position was found at a different location as the 'first choice' postero-lateral or lateral target vein. CONCLUSION: Pressure-volume loop analysis during pacemaker/ICD implantations facilitates to determine the optimal LV pacing site. Patients with chronic RV pacing showed a significant acute improvement in LV function when LV pacing or biventricular pacing is applied.

Effects of stimulation site on diastolic function in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves left ventricular (LV) systolic function and clinical status, and prolongs survival of patients suffering from heart failure. An optimal LV site selection is key with respect to improvements in systolic function, though whether a site-specific effect on diastolic function exists is unclear. This study compared the effects of CRT on changes in systolic and diastolic function from 2 LV stimulation sites. METHODS: We studied 21 patients in New York Heart Association functional classes >/= III, and a LV ejection fraction < 0.30 and QRS duration > 130 ms. CRT leads were placed in the right ventricle, right atrium, and coronary sinus tributaries. LV stimulation was applied from the postero-lateral and antero-lateral wall. A LV conductance catheter was used to measure LV systolic and diastolic function. Systolic responders had > 10% changes in dP/dt(max), and diastolic responders < 10% changes in tau during CRT versus baseline. Response was highly dependent on LV lead position for both diastolic and systolic function. Diastolic responders decreased from 29% to 10% of patients, and systolic responders from 76% to 48%, in the best versus the worst lead position, respectively. Improvements in diastolic function were less pronounced than in systolic function (relative change -14% vs +28%, P < 0.05). Overall, 45% were both systolic and diastolic responders, 17% were both systolic and diastolic nonresponders, and 38% had opposite responses. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in systolic and diastolic function were both highly dependent on the LV stimulation site. Diastolic function was less influenced by CRT and a high proportion of patients had discordant results.

Characteristics of bifocal pacing: right ventricular apex versus outflow tract. An interim analysis.

Bifocal RIGHT ventricular stimulation (BRIGHT) is an ongoing, randomized, single-blind, crossover study of atrial synchronized bi-right ventricular (RV) pacing in patients in New York Heart Association heart failure functional class III, a left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, left bundle branch block and QRS complexes >/=120 ms. This analysis compared the electrical and handling characteristics, and the complications of pacing at the RV apex (Ap) with passive, versus RV outflow tract (OT) with active fixation leads. A mean of 1.6 +/- 0.9 and 2.2 +/- 2.0 attempts were needed to position the Ap and OT leads, respectively (ns). R-wave amplitudes at Ap versus OT were 23 +/- 13 mV versus 14 +/- 8 mV (n = 36, P < 0.001). R-wave amplitudes at the Ap remained stable between implant and M7. R-wave amplitudes at the OT could not be measured after implantation. In two patients, atrioventricular block occurred during active fixation at the OT. Conduction recovered spontaneously within 4 months. Ventricular fibrillation was induced in one patient during manipulation of an Ap lead in the RV. Marked differences were found between leads positioned in the OT versus Ap, partly related to the difference in lead design. Mean R-wave amplitude was higher at the Ap that at the OT. Ease and success rate of lead implant was similar in both positions.