Automatische pacing-timingaanpassingen en effectieve LV-pacing bij CRT

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) requires effective left ventricular (LV) pacing (i.e. sufficient energy and appropriate timing to capture). The AdaptivCRT™ (aCRT) algorithm serves to maintain ventricular fusion during LV or biventricular pacing. This function was tested by comparing the morphological consistency of ventricular depolarizations and percentage effective LV pacing in CRT patients randomized to aCRT vs. echo-optimization. METHODS AND RESULTS: Continuous recordings (≥20 h) of unipolar LV electrograms from aCRT (n = 38) and echo-optimized patients (n = 22) were analysed. Morphological consistency was determined by the correlation coefficient between each beat and a template beat. Effective LV pacing of paced beats was assessed by algorithmic analysis of negative initial EGM deflection in each evoked response. The %CRT pacing delivered, %effective LV pacing (i.e. % of paced beats with effective LV pacing), and overall %effective CRT (i.e. product of %CRT pacing and %effective LV pacing) were compared between aCRT and echo-optimized patients. Demographics were similar between groups. The mean correlation coefficient between individual beats and template was greater for aCRT (0.96 ± 0.03 vs. 0.91 ± 0.13, P = 0.07). Although %CRT pacing was similar for aCRT and echo-optimized (median 97.4 vs. 98.6%, P = 0.14), %effective LV pacing was larger for aCRT [99.6%, (99.1%, 99.9%) vs. 94.3%, (24.3%, 99.8%), P=0.03]. For aCRT vs. echo-optimized groups, the proportions of patients with ≥90% effective LV pacing was 92 vs. 55% (P = 0.002), and with ≥90% effective CRT was 79 vs. 45%, respectively (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: AdaptivCRT™ significantly increased effective LV pacing over echo-optimized CRT.