Insights into dyssynchrony in Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome

BACKGROUND Cardiac resynchronization therapy has been proposed for treatment of hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) patients with right ventricular (RV) failure. The role of dyssynchrony, however, is poorly understood in this population. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to better understan...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Heart rhythm 2012-12, Vol.9 (12), p.2010-2015
Hauptverfasser: Motonaga, Kara S., MD, Miyake, Christina Y., MD, Punn, Rajesh, MD, Rosenthal, David N., MD, Dubin, Anne M., MD, FHRS
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BACKGROUND Cardiac resynchronization therapy has been proposed for treatment of hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) patients with right ventricular (RV) failure. The role of dyssynchrony, however, is poorly understood in this population. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationship between electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony in HLHS using 3-dimensional electrical mapping, tissue Doppler indices of wall motion, and vector velocity imaging. METHODS Eleven HLHS subjects with normal RV function and ten normal subjects (age 3–18 years) were studied. Electrical and mechanical activation times and dyssynchrony indices (electrical dyssynchrony index, mechanical dyssynchrony index) were calculated using 3-dimensional electrical mapping, tissue Doppler indices, and vector velocity imaging. RESULTS No differences in measures of electrical dyssynchrony were seen when comparing HLHS patients and normal patients (electrical activation time 63.3±22.8 ms vs 56.2±11.2 ms, P = .38; electrical dyssynchrony index 13.7±6.3 ms vs 11.6±3.0 ms, P = .34). However, measures of mechanical dyssynchrony were markedly abnormal in HLHS patients despite normal RV function (mechanical activation time 16±11.3 ms vs 0.9±1.9 ms, P = .01; mechanical dyssynchrony index 7.5±5.5 vs 0.4±0.8, P
ISSN:1547-5271
1556-3871
DOI:10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.08.031