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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |