Vidal Bàrbara, Sitges Marta, Marigliano Alba, Delgado Victoria, Díaz-Infante Ernesto, Azqueta Manel, Tamborero David, Tolosana José María, Berruezo Antonio, Pérez-Villa Félix, Paré Carles, Mont Lluís, Brugada Josep
Thorax Clinic Institute, Hospital Clínic, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Am J Cardiol. 2007 Sep 15;100(6):1002-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.04.046. Epub 2007 Jul 5.
This study was conducted to investigate the clinical impact of cardiac resynchronization device optimization. A series of 100 consecutive patients received cardiac resynchronization therapy. In the first 49 patients, an empirical atrioventricular delay of 120 ms was set, with simultaneous biventricular stimulation (interventricular [VV] interval=0 ms). In the next 51 patients, systematic atrioventricular optimization was performed. VV optimization was also performed, selecting 1 VV delay: right or left ventricular preactivation (+30 or -30 ms) or simultaneous (VV interval=0 ms), according to the best synchrony obtained by tissue Doppler-derived wall displacement. At follow-up, patients who were alive without cardiac transplantation and showed improvement of >or=10% in the distance walked in the 6-minute walking test were considered responders. There were no differences between the 2 groups at baseline. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved in the 2 groups, but left ventricular cardiac output improved only in the optimized group. At 6 months, patients with optimized devices walked slightly further in the 6-minute walking test (497+/-167 vs 393+/-123 m, p<0.01), with no differences in New York Heart Association functional class or quality of life compared with nonoptimized patients. Overall, the number of nonresponders were similar in the 2 groups (27% vs 23%, p=NS). In conclusion, the echocardiographic optimization of cardiac resynchronization devices provided a slight incremental clinical benefit at midterm follow-up. Simple and rapid methods to routinely optimize the devices are warranted.
本研究旨在探讨心脏再同步化装置优化的临床影响。连续100例患者接受了心脏再同步化治疗。在前49例患者中,设定经验性房室延迟为120毫秒,同时进行双心室刺激(室间[VV]间期 = 0毫秒)。在接下来的51例患者中,进行了系统性房室优化。还进行了VV优化,根据组织多普勒衍生的室壁位移获得的最佳同步性,选择1个VV延迟:右心室或左心室预激(+30或 -30毫秒)或同时刺激(VV间期 = 0毫秒)。随访时,未进行心脏移植且6分钟步行试验中步行距离改善≥10%的存活患者被视为反应者。两组在基线时无差异。两组的左心室射血分数均有所改善,但仅优化组的左心室心输出量有所改善。6个月时,使用优化装置的患者在6分钟步行试验中走得稍远一些(497±167米对393±123米,p < 0.01),与未优化患者相比,纽约心脏协会功能分级或生活质量无差异。总体而言,两组无反应者数量相似(27%对23%,p = 无显著性差异)。总之,心脏再同步化装置的超声心动图优化在中期随访中提供了轻微的额外临床益处。有必要采用简单快速的方法对装置进行常规优化。