2011
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eur335
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discordant electrical and mechanical atrial delays affect intracavitary electrogram-based cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization

Abstract: Our results show that MIAD plays the main role in determining the optimal AV delay, thus caution should be taken when optimizing AV by IEGM-based methods.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This algorithm is currently being evaluated in the FREEDOM study, 153 but preliminary results show no clear benefits so far. Two small studies have shown no improved prediction of optimal interventricular delay with this algorithm co mpared with using an interventricular delay of 0 ms. 154,155 The SmartAV algorithm, assessed in the SmartDelay study, 100 also uses lead electrograms and QRS duration to predict atrioventricular and interventricular delay. Neither the SmartAV algorithm nor echocardiographic optimization showed any benefit over the use of a default atrioventricular delay of 120 ms. 100 The AdaptiveCRT algorithm 144 uses lead electrograms to calculate the atrioventricular delay to optimize fusion of the LV-pacing-derived wavefront with that from intrinsic conduction, at least if the atrio-RV delay is ≤200 ms and heart rate is <100 bpm.…”
Section: Importance Of the Percentage Of Pacingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This algorithm is currently being evaluated in the FREEDOM study, 153 but preliminary results show no clear benefits so far. Two small studies have shown no improved prediction of optimal interventricular delay with this algorithm co mpared with using an interventricular delay of 0 ms. 154,155 The SmartAV algorithm, assessed in the SmartDelay study, 100 also uses lead electrograms and QRS duration to predict atrioventricular and interventricular delay. Neither the SmartAV algorithm nor echocardiographic optimization showed any benefit over the use of a default atrioventricular delay of 120 ms. 100 The AdaptiveCRT algorithm 144 uses lead electrograms to calculate the atrioventricular delay to optimize fusion of the LV-pacing-derived wavefront with that from intrinsic conduction, at least if the atrio-RV delay is ≤200 ms and heart rate is <100 bpm.…”
Section: Importance Of the Percentage Of Pacingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current automatic algorithms for AV delay optimization cannot measure IACT as they are based on RA, RV, and LV IEGMs. Thus, in case of interatrial delays these algorithms might fail to identify the best AV interval as they lack information on timing of LA activation 12 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their lack of benefit may be due to the rest condition and to the low frequency of the AV and VV intervals optimization. Moreover, Porciani et al have shown that automatic algorithms such as QuickOpt may fail to identify the best AV and VV intervals, since in patients with severe heart failure the electrical activation times do not always coincide with the times of mechanical activation [33]. While previous automatic algorithms did not demonstrate any beneficial effect, the automatic PEA method, based on the mechanical acceleration of the heart has been shown to be closely consistent with the cardiac ultrasound in the timings of aortic and mitral valve closures and in the estimation of systolic and diastolic intervals durations [29].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%