Hyde Eoin R, Behar Jonathan M, Crozier Andrew, Claridge Simon, Jackson Tom, Sohal Manav, Gill Jaswinder S, O'Neill Mark D, Razavi Reza, Niederer Steven A, Rinaldi Christopher A
Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, UK.
Department of Cardiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016 Jun;39(6):531-41. doi: 10.1111/pace.12854. Epub 2016 May 9.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular epicardial (BV-CS) or endocardial left ventricular (LV) stimulation (BV-EN) improves LV hemodynamics. The effect of CRT on right ventricular function is less clear, particularly for BV-EN. Our objective was to compare the simultaneous acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of the right and left ventricles (RV and LV) with BV-CS and BV-EN in order to determine the optimal mode of CRT delivery.
Nine patients with previously implanted CRT devices successfully underwent a temporary pacing study. Pressure wires measured the simultaneous AHR in both ventricles during different pacing protocols. Conventional epicardial CRT was delivered in LV-only (LV-CS) and BV-CS configurations and compared with BV-EN pacing in multiple locations using a roving decapolar catheter.
Best BV-EN (optimal AHR of all LV endocardial pacing sites) produced a significantly greater RV AHR compared with LV-CS and BV-CS pacing (P < 0.05). RV AHR had a significantly increased standard deviation compared to LV AHR (P < 0.05) with a weak correlation between RV and LV AHR (Spearman rs = -0.06). Compromised biventricular optimization, whereby RV AHR was increased at the expense of a smaller decrease in LV AHR, was achieved in 56% of cases, all with BV-EN pacing.
BV-EN pacing produces significant increases in both LV and RV AHR, above that achievable with conventional epicardial pacing. RV AHR cannot be used as a surrogate for optimizing LV AHR; however, compromised biventricular optimization is possible. The beneficial effect of endocardial LV pacing on RV function may have important clinical benefits beyond conventional CRT.
双心室心外膜(BV-CS)或心内膜左心室(LV)刺激的心脏再同步治疗(CRT)可改善左心室血流动力学。CRT对右心室功能的影响尚不清楚,尤其是对于BV-EN。我们的目的是比较BV-CS和BV-EN时左右心室(RV和LV)的同步急性血流动力学反应(AHR),以确定CRT的最佳递送模式。
9例先前植入CRT装置的患者成功进行了临时起搏研究。压力导线在不同起搏方案期间测量两个心室的同步AHR。采用传统的心外膜CRT,以仅左心室(LV-CS)和BV-CS配置进行,并使用可移动的十极导管在多个位置与BV-EN起搏进行比较。
最佳BV-EN(所有左心室心内膜起搏部位的最佳AHR)与LV-CS和BV-CS起搏相比,产生的右心室AHR明显更大(P<0.05)。与左心室AHR相比,右心室AHR的标准差显著增加(P<0.05),右心室和左心室AHR之间的相关性较弱(Spearman rs=-0.06)。56%的病例实现了双心室优化受损,即右心室AHR增加,但左心室AHR下降幅度较小,所有这些病例均采用BV-EN起搏。
BV-EN起搏可使左心室和右心室AHR均显著增加,高于传统心外膜起搏所能达到的水平。右心室AHR不能用作优化左心室AHR的替代指标;然而,双心室优化受损是可能的。左心室心内膜起搏对右心室功能的有益作用可能具有超越传统CRT的重要临床益处。