Cargando…

In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study

INTRODUCTION: Recent efforts to increase CRT response by multiSPOT pacing (MSP) from multiple bipols on the same left ventricular lead are still inconclusive. AIM: The Left Ventricular (LV) MultiSPOTpacing for CRT (iSPOT) study compared the acute hemodynamic response of MSP pacing by using 3 electro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sterliński, Maciej, Sokal, Adam, Lenarczyk, Radosław, Van Heuverswyn, Frederic, Rinaldi, C. Aldo, Vanderheyden, Marc, Khalameizer, Vladimir, Francis, Darrel, Heynens, Joeri, Stegemann, Berthold, Cornelussen, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849737/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27124724
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154024
_version_ 1782429590217555968
author Sterliński, Maciej
Sokal, Adam
Lenarczyk, Radosław
Van Heuverswyn, Frederic
Rinaldi, C. Aldo
Vanderheyden, Marc
Khalameizer, Vladimir
Francis, Darrel
Heynens, Joeri
Stegemann, Berthold
Cornelussen, Richard
author_facet Sterliński, Maciej
Sokal, Adam
Lenarczyk, Radosław
Van Heuverswyn, Frederic
Rinaldi, C. Aldo
Vanderheyden, Marc
Khalameizer, Vladimir
Francis, Darrel
Heynens, Joeri
Stegemann, Berthold
Cornelussen, Richard
author_sort Sterliński, Maciej
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Recent efforts to increase CRT response by multiSPOT pacing (MSP) from multiple bipols on the same left ventricular lead are still inconclusive. AIM: The Left Ventricular (LV) MultiSPOTpacing for CRT (iSPOT) study compared the acute hemodynamic response of MSP pacing by using 3 electrodes on a quadripolar lead compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BiV). METHODS: Patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) underwent an acute hemodynamic study to determine the %change in LV+dP/dtmax from baseline atrial pacing compared to the following configurations: BiV pacing with the LV lead in a one of lateral veins, while pacing from the distal, mid, or proximal electrode and all 3 electrodes together (i.e. MSP). All measurements were repeated 4 times at 5 different atrioventricular delays. We also measured QRS-width and individual Q-LV durations. RESULTS: Protocol was completed in 24 patients, all with LBBB (QRS width 171±20 ms) and 58% ischemic aetiology. The percentage change in LV+dP/dtmax for MSP pacing was 31.0±3.3% (Mean±SE), which was not significantly superior to any BiV pacing configuration: 28.9±3.2% (LV-distal), 28.3±2.7% (LV-mid), and 29.5±3.0% (LV-prox), respectively. Correlation between LV+dP/dtmax and either QRS-width or Q-LV ratio was poor. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LBBB MultiSPOT LV pacing demonstrated comparable improvement in contractility to best conventional BiV pacing. Optimization of atrioventricular delay is important for the best performance for both BiV and MultiSPOT pacing configurations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NTC01883141
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4849737
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48497372016-05-07 In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study Sterliński, Maciej Sokal, Adam Lenarczyk, Radosław Van Heuverswyn, Frederic Rinaldi, C. Aldo Vanderheyden, Marc Khalameizer, Vladimir Francis, Darrel Heynens, Joeri Stegemann, Berthold Cornelussen, Richard PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Recent efforts to increase CRT response by multiSPOT pacing (MSP) from multiple bipols on the same left ventricular lead are still inconclusive. AIM: The Left Ventricular (LV) MultiSPOTpacing for CRT (iSPOT) study compared the acute hemodynamic response of MSP pacing by using 3 electrodes on a quadripolar lead compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BiV). METHODS: Patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) underwent an acute hemodynamic study to determine the %change in LV+dP/dtmax from baseline atrial pacing compared to the following configurations: BiV pacing with the LV lead in a one of lateral veins, while pacing from the distal, mid, or proximal electrode and all 3 electrodes together (i.e. MSP). All measurements were repeated 4 times at 5 different atrioventricular delays. We also measured QRS-width and individual Q-LV durations. RESULTS: Protocol was completed in 24 patients, all with LBBB (QRS width 171±20 ms) and 58% ischemic aetiology. The percentage change in LV+dP/dtmax for MSP pacing was 31.0±3.3% (Mean±SE), which was not significantly superior to any BiV pacing configuration: 28.9±3.2% (LV-distal), 28.3±2.7% (LV-mid), and 29.5±3.0% (LV-prox), respectively. Correlation between LV+dP/dtmax and either QRS-width or Q-LV ratio was poor. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LBBB MultiSPOT LV pacing demonstrated comparable improvement in contractility to best conventional BiV pacing. Optimization of atrioventricular delay is important for the best performance for both BiV and MultiSPOT pacing configurations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NTC01883141 Public Library of Science 2016-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4849737/ /pubmed/27124724 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154024 Text en © 2016 Sterliński et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sterliński, Maciej
Sokal, Adam
Lenarczyk, Radosław
Van Heuverswyn, Frederic
Rinaldi, C. Aldo
Vanderheyden, Marc
Khalameizer, Vladimir
Francis, Darrel
Heynens, Joeri
Stegemann, Berthold
Cornelussen, Richard
In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study
title In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study
title_full In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study
title_fullStr In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study
title_full_unstemmed In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study
title_short In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study
title_sort in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block single lead multispot left ventricular pacing does not improve acute hemodynamic response to conventional biventricular pacing. a multicenter prospective, interventional, non-randomized study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849737/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27124724
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154024
work_keys_str_mv AT sterlinskimaciej inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT sokaladam inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT lenarczykradosław inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT vanheuverswynfrederic inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT rinaldicaldo inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT vanderheydenmarc inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT khalameizervladimir inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT francisdarrel inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT heynensjoeri inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT stegemannberthold inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy
AT cornelussenrichard inheartfailurepatientswithleftbundlebranchblocksingleleadmultispotleftventricularpacingdoesnotimproveacutehemodynamicresponsetoconventionalbiventricularpacingamulticenterprospectiveinterventionalnonrandomizedstudy