Pressure-Volume Loop Analysis of Multipoint Pacing With a Quadripolar Left Ventricular Lead in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Publication date

2018-07

Authors

van Everdingen, WouterISNI 0000000464452962
Zweerink, Alwin
Salden, Odette A
Cramer, Maarten J.ISNI 0000000390984527
Doevendans, Pieter A.ISNI 0000000110574516
Engels, Elien B
van Rossum, Albert C
Prinzen, Frits W
Vernooy, Kevin
Allaart, Cornelis P

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article

Collections

Open Access logo

License

taverne

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare multipoint pacing (MPP) to optimal biventricular pacing with a quadripolar left ventricular (LV) lead and find factors associated with hemodynamic response to MPP. Background: MPP with a quadripolar LV lead may increase response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Methods: Heart failure patients with a left bundle branch block underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation. Q to LV sensing interval divided by the intrinsic QRS duration was measured. Invasive pressure-volume loops were assessed during 4 biventricular pacing settings and 3 MPP settings, using 4 atrioventricular delays. Hemodynamic response was defined as change in stroke work (Δ%SW) compared with baseline measurements during intrinsic conduction. Δ%SW of MPP was compared with conventional biventricular pacing using the distal electrode and the electrode with highest Δ%SW (BIV-OPT). Results: Forty-three patients were analyzed (age 66 ± 10 years, 63% men, 30% ischemic cardiomyopathy, LV ejection fraction 29 ± 8%, and QRS duration 175 ± 13 ms). Q to local LV sensing interval corrected for QRS duration was 84 ± 8%, and variation between LV electrodes was 9 ± 5%. Compared with conventional biventricular pacing using the distal electrode, MPP showed a significant higher increase of SW (Δ%SW +15 ± 35%; p < 0.05) with a large interindividual variation. There was no significant difference in Δ%SW with MPP compared with BIV-OPT (−5 ± 24%; p = 0.19). Male sex and low LV ejection fraction were associated with increase in Δ%SW due to MPP versus BIV-OPT in multivariate analysis, while ischemic cardiomyopathy was only associated in univariate analysis. Conclusions: Optimization of the pacing site of a quadripolar LV lead is more important than to program MPP. However, specific subgroups (i.e., especially men) may benefit substantially from MPP.

Keywords

acute hemodynamic response, cardiac resynchronization therapy, multipoint pacing, pressure-volume loops, quadripolar lead, Taverne

Citation

van Everdingen, W M, Zweerink, A, Salden, O A E, Cramer, M J, Doevendans, P A, Engels, E B, van Rossum, A C, Prinzen, F W, Vernooy, K, Allaart, C P & Meine, M 2018, 'Pressure-Volume Loop Analysis of Multipoint Pacing With a Quadripolar Left Ventricular Lead in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy', JACC. Clinical electrophysiology, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 881-889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2018.02.005