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

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 obtaine...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2002-04, Vol.39 (7), p.1163-1169
Hauptverfasser: Auricchio, Angelo, Ding, Jiang, Spinelli, Julio C, Kramer, Andrew P, Salo, Rodney W, Hoersch, Walter, KenKnight, Bruce H, Klein, Helmut U
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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.
ISSN:0735-1097
1558-3597
DOI:10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01727-8