Sinner Gregory J, Gupta Vedant A, Seratnahaei Arash, Charnigo Richard J, Darrat Yousef H, Elayi Samy C, Leung Steve W, Sorrell Vincent L
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky Medical Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gill Heart Institute, University of Kentucky Medical Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Echocardiography. 2017 Apr;34(4):496-503. doi: 10.1111/echo.13486. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
Echocardiographic atrioventricular (AV) optimization after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is uncommon due to time constraints and the use of vendor-specific device algorithms. It remains unclear whether optimization of mitral inflow velocities can still be useful. We aimed to investigate post implantation left ventricular (LV) inflow patterns to determine the incidence of AV dyssynchrony from empirically set devices.
This was a retrospective study of patients undergoing CRT using empiric device settings. Forty-eight patients with clinical, echocardiographic, and pacemaker follow-up were grouped by their post implantation LV filling pattern. Baseline characteristics and echocardiographic measurements were compared with post implantation findings at median 6.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9-17.0).
Twenty-four patients demonstrated AV dyssynchrony (Group 1) after CRT, and 24 patients did not (Group 2). Group 1 patients had less LV reverse remodeling compared to Group 2 patients (ΔLV end-diastolic volume: -3.6 mL vs -49.5 mL, P<.05; ΔLV end-systolic volume: -16.9 mL vs -53.5 mL, P<.05) and did not experience significant improvements in LV outflow tract velocity time integral, stroke volume, or LV ejection fraction. There were no differences in new-onset atrial fibrillation, heart failure readmissions, or mortality between groups.
Our study suggests that up to 50% of patients with empiric device settings have AV dyssynchrony at 6 months despite atrioventricular delay optimization (AVO) algorithms. As AV dyssynchrony is common and has proven to be modifiable, a strategic approach to Doppler echocardiography-guided AVO after CRT is warranted, particularly in nonresponders where the LV filling pattern is fused or truncated.
由于时间限制以及使用特定厂商的设备算法,心脏再同步治疗(CRT)后进行超声心动图房室(AV)优化并不常见。二尖瓣流入速度的优化是否仍然有用尚不清楚。我们旨在研究植入后左心室(LV)流入模式,以确定经验性设置设备导致的房室不同步发生率。
这是一项对使用经验性设备设置进行CRT的患者的回顾性研究。48例有临床、超声心动图和起搏器随访的患者按植入后左心室充盈模式分组。将基线特征和超声心动图测量结果与植入后中位数6.3个月(四分位间距[IQR],3.9 - 17.0)的结果进行比较。
24例患者在CRT后出现房室不同步(第1组),24例患者未出现(第2组)。与第2组患者相比,第1组患者左心室逆向重构较少(左心室舒张末期容积变化:-3.6 mL对-49.5 mL,P <.05;左心室收缩末期容积变化:-16.9 mL对-53.5 mL,P <.05),并且左心室流出道速度时间积分、每搏输出量或左心室射血分数没有显著改善。两组之间新发房颤、心力衰竭再入院或死亡率没有差异。
我们的研究表明,尽管有房室延迟优化(AVO)算法,但高达50%使用经验性设备设置的患者在6个月时仍存在房室不同步。由于房室不同步很常见且已被证明是可改变的,因此在CRT后采用多普勒超声心动图引导的AVO的策略性方法是必要的,特别是在左心室充盈模式融合或截断的无反应者中。