Cargando…

Fluctuation of left ventricular thresholds and required safety margin for left ventricular pacing with cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS: Fluctuations in left ventricular (LV) thresholds with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are unknown. The LV capture management (LVCM) algorithm automatically measures LV thresholds on a daily basis and offers the opportunity to analyse threshold fluctuations. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burri, Haran, Gerritse, Bart, Davenport, Lynn, Demas, Myriam, Sticherling, Christian
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2699980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19435738
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/eup105
_version_ 1782168562247401472
author Burri, Haran
Gerritse, Bart
Davenport, Lynn
Demas, Myriam
Sticherling, Christian
author_facet Burri, Haran
Gerritse, Bart
Davenport, Lynn
Demas, Myriam
Sticherling, Christian
author_sort Burri, Haran
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Fluctuations in left ventricular (LV) thresholds with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are unknown. The LV capture management (LVCM) algorithm automatically measures LV thresholds on a daily basis and offers the opportunity to analyse threshold fluctuations. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 282 patients implanted with a Medtronic Concerto® CRT-D device were prospectively studied. Device data were collected at periodic visits, including daily thresholds from the preceding 14 days and weekly threshold ranges since implantation, acquired by the LVCM algorithm up to 12 months’ follow-up. Overall, LV thresholds remained relatively stable, with 189/208 (91%) patients having a maximum increase in threshold of ≤1.0 V at any time between their 1 and 6 month visits and 127/135 (94%) between the 6 and 12 month visits. However, increase in threshold was significantly affected by LV threshold amplitude. Of the 170 patients with a 1 month threshold of ≤2.0 V, 159 (94%) had increases of <1.0 V up to their 6 month visit, whereas 8/38 (21%) patients with >2.0 V threshold had increases of >1.0 V (P = 0.01). There were no significant changes in LV threshold amplitude and fluctuation over the 12 month follow-up. CONCLUSION: For patients with low (≤2.0 V) LV thresholds, a safety margin of 1.0 V is sufficient to ensure LV capture if phrenic nerve stimulation is an issue, and may be even lower in devices with auto-adaptive capture management algorithms. However, the margin should be greater in patients with higher thresholds because of larger fluctuations. Left ventricular capture management may be particularly useful in these patients to ensure LV capture without sacrificing device longevity.
format Text
id pubmed-2699980
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26999802009-06-23 Fluctuation of left ventricular thresholds and required safety margin for left ventricular pacing with cardiac resynchronization therapy Burri, Haran Gerritse, Bart Davenport, Lynn Demas, Myriam Sticherling, Christian Europace Clinical Research AIMS: Fluctuations in left ventricular (LV) thresholds with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are unknown. The LV capture management (LVCM) algorithm automatically measures LV thresholds on a daily basis and offers the opportunity to analyse threshold fluctuations. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 282 patients implanted with a Medtronic Concerto® CRT-D device were prospectively studied. Device data were collected at periodic visits, including daily thresholds from the preceding 14 days and weekly threshold ranges since implantation, acquired by the LVCM algorithm up to 12 months’ follow-up. Overall, LV thresholds remained relatively stable, with 189/208 (91%) patients having a maximum increase in threshold of ≤1.0 V at any time between their 1 and 6 month visits and 127/135 (94%) between the 6 and 12 month visits. However, increase in threshold was significantly affected by LV threshold amplitude. Of the 170 patients with a 1 month threshold of ≤2.0 V, 159 (94%) had increases of <1.0 V up to their 6 month visit, whereas 8/38 (21%) patients with >2.0 V threshold had increases of >1.0 V (P = 0.01). There were no significant changes in LV threshold amplitude and fluctuation over the 12 month follow-up. CONCLUSION: For patients with low (≤2.0 V) LV thresholds, a safety margin of 1.0 V is sufficient to ensure LV capture if phrenic nerve stimulation is an issue, and may be even lower in devices with auto-adaptive capture management algorithms. However, the margin should be greater in patients with higher thresholds because of larger fluctuations. Left ventricular capture management may be particularly useful in these patients to ensure LV capture without sacrificing device longevity. Oxford University Press 2009-07 2009-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC2699980/ /pubmed/19435738 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/eup105 Text en Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2009. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/ The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open access version of this article for non-commercial purposes provided that the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal, Learned Society and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work this must be clearly indicated. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions©oxfordjournals.org.
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Burri, Haran
Gerritse, Bart
Davenport, Lynn
Demas, Myriam
Sticherling, Christian
Fluctuation of left ventricular thresholds and required safety margin for left ventricular pacing with cardiac resynchronization therapy
title Fluctuation of left ventricular thresholds and required safety margin for left ventricular pacing with cardiac resynchronization therapy
title_full Fluctuation of left ventricular thresholds and required safety margin for left ventricular pacing with cardiac resynchronization therapy
title_fullStr Fluctuation of left ventricular thresholds and required safety margin for left ventricular pacing with cardiac resynchronization therapy
title_full_unstemmed Fluctuation of left ventricular thresholds and required safety margin for left ventricular pacing with cardiac resynchronization therapy
title_short Fluctuation of left ventricular thresholds and required safety margin for left ventricular pacing with cardiac resynchronization therapy
title_sort fluctuation of left ventricular thresholds and required safety margin for left ventricular pacing with cardiac resynchronization therapy
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2699980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19435738
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/eup105
work_keys_str_mv AT burriharan fluctuationofleftventricularthresholdsandrequiredsafetymarginforleftventricularpacingwithcardiacresynchronizationtherapy
AT gerritsebart fluctuationofleftventricularthresholdsandrequiredsafetymarginforleftventricularpacingwithcardiacresynchronizationtherapy
AT davenportlynn fluctuationofleftventricularthresholdsandrequiredsafetymarginforleftventricularpacingwithcardiacresynchronizationtherapy
AT demasmyriam fluctuationofleftventricularthresholdsandrequiredsafetymarginforleftventricularpacingwithcardiacresynchronizationtherapy
AT sticherlingchristian fluctuationofleftventricularthresholdsandrequiredsafetymarginforleftventricularpacingwithcardiacresynchronizationtherapy