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