Cardiac resynchronization therapy restores optimal atrioventricular mechanical timing in heart failure patients with ventricular conduction delay

• Published in: Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 39; no. 7; pp. 1163 - 1169
• Main Authors: Auricchio, Angelo, Ding, Jiang, Spinelli, Julio C, Kramer, Andrew P, Salo, Rodney W, Hoersch, Walter, KenKnight, Bruce H, Klein, Helmut U
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 03.04.2002; Elsevier Science; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Atrial Function, Left - physiology; Atrioventricular Node - physiopathology; Biological and medical sciences; Blood pressure; Bundle-Branch Block - physiopathology; Bundle-Branch Block - therapy; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial; Cardiology; Cardiology. Vascular system; Cardiovascular disease; Case-Control Studies; Female; Heart; Heart failure; Heart Failure - physiopathology; Heart Failure - therapy; Heart failure, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, cardiac enlargement; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Optimization techniques; Ostomy; Stroke Volume - physiology; Ventricular Function, Left - physiology; Ventricular Pressure - physiology; PP; dP/dtmax; CRT; RA-LS; RV; LV; RA-AP; PATH-CHF; RA; LVEDP; BV; AV; AVL; HF; Human; Heart failure; Prognosis; Arrhythmia; Electrical stimulus; Right ventricle; Instrumentation therapy; Cardiovascular disease; Conduction disorder; Left ventricle; Instrumental stimulation; Treatment; Pacemaker; Heart disease; Heart block; Hemodynamics; Technique
• ISSN: 0735-1097; 1558-3597
• DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01727-8

We characterized the relationship between systolic ventricular function and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) in patients with heart failure (HF) and baseline asynchrony during ventricular stimulation. The role of preload in the systolic performance improvement that can be obtained in HF patients with LV stimulation is uncertain. We measured the maximum rate of increase of LV pressure, LVEDP, aortic pulse pressure (PP) and the atrioventricular mechanical latency (AVL) between left atrial systole and LV pressure onset in 39 patients with HF. Two subgroups were identified: “responder” if PP improved, or “nonresponder.” Maximum hemodynamic improvement occurred at an atrioventricular (AV) delay that did not decrease LVEDP. Left ventricular and biventricular (BV) stimulation increased systolic hemodynamics significantly, despite no significant increase in LVEDP. All parameters decreased when the LVEDP was decreased by shorter AV delay. Left ventricular and BV stimulation provided better hemodynamics than right ventricular (RV) stimulation. For the nonresponder subgroup, systolic hemodynamics only worsened during AV delay shortening. For the responder subgroup, optimum PP was achieved when AVL was near zero. Restoration of optimal left atrial-ventricular mechanical timing partly contributes to the hemodynamic improvements observed in this patient subgroup. However, preload alone cannot explain the differences seen between RV and BV stimulation and the contradictory PP decreases even at maximal preload in the nonresponder subgroup. These results may be explained by a site-dependent mechanism such as the degree of ventricular synchrony. Caution should be taken in these patients when optimizing AV delays using echocardiography techniques that focus on LV inflow.