doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.108.777904
Advances in Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology |
Ventricular Pump Function and Pacing
Physiological and Clinical Integration
From the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (M.O.S.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; and the Department of Physiology (F.W.P.), Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands .
Correspondence to Michael O. Sweeney, MD, Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA. E-mail mosweeney{at}partners.org
Key Words: bundle-branch block • cardiomyopathy • heart failure • myocardial contraction • pacing
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction Consequences of Uncoupling at...Strategies to Reduce the...Mechanisms of Cardiac...Clinical Experience With CRTReferences |
|---|
Optimal cardiac pump function depends on ordered mechanical events that are orchestrated by electrical timing. This electromechanical coupling occurs at multiple anatomic levels: within atria, between atria and ventricles, between ventricles, and especially within the left ventricle (LV). Such disruptions to proper electrical timing result in disordered mechanical events (desynchronization, or "dyssynchrony"), can occur spontaneously or be induced in isolation or in various combinations at any level, and degrade cardiac pump function. These disruptions to normal mechanical ordering occur because of fixed or functional conduction blocks and can be generated by myocardial disease or can be induced by cardiac pacing. The adverse effects of disruption of proper electromechanical coupling at all levels with particular attention to the effects of ventricular conduction delay due to conventional (usually right ventricular apical, RVA) pacing and left bundle-branch block (LBBB) are discussed later. Subsequently, remedies for prevention or treatment are discussed along the same lines.
|
Consequences of Uncoupling at Various Levels |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionConsequences of Uncoupling at...Strategies to Reduce the...Mechanisms of Cardiac...Clinical Experience With CRTReferences |
|---|
Uncoupling at the Atrial Level
The right atrium and left atrium are activated nearly simultaneously (within 50 to 80 ms) during sinus rhythm. Preferential sites of interatrial conduction exist at the posterior-superior interatrial septum (Bachmann’s bundle region), fossa ovalis, and coronary sinus ostium.1,2 Significant interatrial conduction delays (up to 200 ms or greater) can occur in myopathic atria. Similar conduction delays can be also be induced, or exacerbated, by right atrial pacing. Delayed left atrial contraction can disrupt optimal left-sided atrioventricular (AV) coupling. Severe atrial decoupling and delayed left atrial contraction reverses the left-sided AV contraction sequence, resulting in atrial transport block.3 This causes increased left atrial pressures, retrograde flow in the pulmonary veins, and counterphysiological neurohormonal responses termed "pseudopacemaker syndrome."4–6
Uncoupling at Atrioventricular Level
Optimal AV coupling contributes to ventricular pump function. The normal AV interval results in atrial contraction just before the pre-ejection (isovolumic) period of ventricular contraction that maximizes LV filling (LV end-diastolic pressure, or preload) and cardiac output by the Starling mechanism. This optimal timing relationship maximizes diastolic filling time, reduces diastolic mitral regurgitation (MR), and maintains mean left atrium pressure at low levels.
Delayed AV coupling due to conduction delay in the AV node displaces atrial contraction earlier in diastole, which may occur immediately after or even within the preceding ventricular contraction. Atrial contraction before completion of venous return reduces preload and contractile force. A late diastolic LV>left atrium pressure gradient may occur, causing diastolic MR and partial closure of the mitral valve, which shortens diastolic filling time. Delayed AV coupling may be worsened or induced by atrial pacing.7 Atrial fibrillation (AF) disrupts atrial coupling (atrial desynchronization) and eliminates AV coupling (AV uncoupling).
Ventricular Level
Normal LV electrical activation is rapid and homogeneous with minimal temporal dispersion throughout the wall.8 This elicits a synchronous mechanical activation and ventricular contraction.9 The resulting coordinated myocardial segment activation maximizes ventricular pump function. Wiggers10 established the linkage between pacing-induced alterations in ventricular conduction and pump function with 2 seminal observations in 1925: (1) Pacing at virtually any ventricular site disturbs the natural pattern of activation and contraction, because the evoked electrical wavefront propagates slowly through ventricular myocardium rather than through the His-Purkinje system. (2) Altered ventricular activation causes an immediate reduction in pump function, and some sites are worse than others (site selectivity). In general, RV pacing sites appear to be more detrimental than LV pacing sites, and the RVA is among the worst sites within the RV.11
Optimal inter- and intraventricular coupling is more important than AV coupling for maximum ventricular pumping function.12,13 RVA pacing and LBBB both induce delays in transseptal and intraventricular conduction.14 Consequently, the hemodynamic effects of altered ventricular activation during RVA pacing and LBBB are comparable. These effects can be attributed to disturbed interventricular as well as intraventricular coupling. RVA pacing also disturbs RV activation because of slow intramyocardial conduction.
Interventricular decoupling refers to a sequential RV–LV activation delay. In LBBB, earliest ventricular depolarization is recorded over the anterior surface of the RV and generally latest at the posterior or posterolateral basal LV.15–20 Interventricular dyssynchrony can be quantified by the time delay between the upslopes of LV and RV systolic pressure12 as well as time delay between opening of the pulmonic and aortic valves.21 Similar changes occur during RV pacing. This disruption to ventricular interdependence is a determinant of paradoxical septal motion. Presumably this reduction in ventricular septal contribution to LV ejection is an important factor in the reduction of pump function during LBBB.12,22
Delayed intraventricular activation is likely the most important determinant of reduced pump function. In RVA pacing and LBBB, electrical activation starts in the interventricular septum, whereas the posterior or posterolateral basal LV wall is activated >100 ms later. Such considerable intraventricular delay during RVA pacing and LBBB pacing is due to slow spread of the depolarization wavefront through the working myocardium rather than through the Purkinje system. Slow intramyocardial conduction during RVA pacing prolongs QRS duration (QRSd) from the normal values of 
80 ms to values of 140 ms in otherwise normal hearts to 200 ms in infarcted LVs.14 Furthermore, the delay in LV activation relative to QRSd during RVA pacing is greater in failing ventricles.23
LBBB is a complex electrical disease resulting from LV conduction delay at multiple anatomic levels, which may be anatomically fixed or functional and is exhibited differently according to substrate characterization (ischemic [ICM] versus nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM]). Early endocardial activation mapping studies of LBBB concluded that conduction delay resided entirely within the ventricular septum and that LV endocardial activation was rapid after single-point breakthrough in nonischemic DCM, whereas activation was slowed across regions of scar throughout the LV in ischemic DCM.15 In both situations, the posterior or posterolateral basal LV is the latest activated region.
Higher-resolution endocardial and epicardial mapping studies have revealed that LV activation during LBBB, despite a similar surface electrocardiographic appearance, is considerably heterogeneous. At least 3 patterns of delayed LV activation have been characterized: (1) transseptal delay with or without LV endocardial delay, (2) normal transseptal conduction with slow conduction velocities in peri-infarct regions and globally slow in nonischemic DCM, and (3) slowed U-shaped activation around a line of functional block on the anterior wall.16–20 Generally, QRSd of 120 to 150 ms indicates delay confined specifically to the specialized conduction system, whereas QRSd >150 ms usually indicates additional conduction delay in diseased myocardium.
The pattern of transseptal activation delay varies and influences LV endocardial activation. Significantly prolonged transseptal conduction times through a diseased left bundle branch result in midseptal LV or septo-apical breakthroughs and unidirectional wavefront propagation throughout the LV. Rapid transseptal conduction times typify conduction through septal branches of the His-Purkinje system with basal breakthroughs from the anterior or posterior fascicle and bidirectional wavefront propagation from base to apex and high septum. Breakthrough from both fascicles results in a double wavefront that fuses on the posterolateral wall. Single-site breakthrough from the high septum because of right-to-left muscular conduction (no conduction system present) results in a single wavefront that propagates from base to apex.16 The pattern of septal activation may affect ventricular mechanics differently. High septal activation may result in simultaneous RV and LV activation in opposite directions, and papillary muscle activation may be influenced by the earliest site of LV activation.16,20,24,25
The pattern of LV endocardial and epicardial activation is also influenced by the location and size of lines of fixed or functional conduction block. Fixed conduction block is due to replacement of normal myocardium by interstitial fibrosis. The physiological basis for functional conduction blocks has not been elucidated but could relate to stretch, heart rate, and spontaneous diastolic depolarization. Anterior locations of the line of functional block are characterized by a U-shaped LV activation pattern,17–19 more prolonged QRSd (>150 ms), and greater time to LV breakthrough.18 Late activation of the posterior or posterolateral basal LV occurred by wavefront propagation around the line of block using the apical or inferior LV walls. Lateral locations of the line of block are characterized by less prolonged QRSd (<150 ms) and shorter time to LV breakthrough. Pacing maneuvers shift either line of block, indicating their functional nature.18 Noninvasive mapping of epicardial activation using body surface potentials extended these observations and demonstrated that electrical activation patterns in LBBB are highly heterogeneous and unpredictable.20 Lines of conduction block do not correlate with regions of wall motion abnormality or scarring. Some lines of block arose only during pacing and were site dependent (functional), whereas other lines of block could not be manipulated with pacing maneuvers, indicating these were due to slow or absent conduction (fixed). Latest activation most often occurred in the posterior or posterolateral basal wall but was also observed in the anterior and inferior walls in some patients.
Effects of Asynchrony on LV Mechanics and Structure
Regions that are activated early also start to contract early. Accordingly, in RVA pacing and LBBB, the earliest and latest sites of segmental LV activation correlate well with time to peak systolic velocity by Doppler19 and strain by tagged magnetic resonance imaging,9,26–28 providing evidence that ventricular conduction delay is responsible for heterogeneous mechanical performance (asynchrony). The mechanical effect of asynchronous electrical activation is dramatic, because the various regions not only differ in the time of onset of contraction but also in the pattern of contraction (Figure 1). Contraction of early activated myocardium is energetically inefficient because LV pressure is low and ejection has not begun. Instead, stretching of not as yet activated remote regions absorbs the energy generated by the early activated regions. This stretching further delays shortening of these late activated regions and increases their force of local contraction by virtue of the Frank-Starling mechanism (locally enhanced preload). Vigorous late systolic contraction at delayed sites occurs against high LV cavity pressures (locally enhanced afterload) and imposes loading on the earlier activated regions, which now undergo systolic paradoxical stretch.29 This reciprocated stretching of regions within the LV wall causes a less effective and energetically efficient contraction.30
|
The hemodynamic consequences of the asynchronous LV contraction are reductions in contractility and relaxation. These changes occur immediately on initiating RVA pacing in humans and animals11,31 and induction of LBBB in animals.12 The loss of pump function is indicated by decreases in stroke volume, stroke work, and slower rate of rise of LV pressure (Figure 1). Moreover, the LV end-systolic pressure–volume relationship shifts rightward, indicating that the LV operates at a larger volume in order to recruit the Frank-Starling mechanism.11 Premature relaxation in early activated regions and delayed contraction in others also causes abnormal relaxation,11 expressed as slower rate of fall of LV pressure, increase in the relaxation time constant tau, and decrease of E-wave velocity amplitude on Doppler echocardiograms.32 These changes also lead to prolongation of the isovolumic contraction and relaxation times, which are characteristic for asynchronous hearts.33 The prolongation of the isovolumic times occurs mainly at the expense of the diastolic filling time, leading to reduced preload.
The redistribution of the mechanical load within the ventricular wall also leads to reduction of regional myocardial perfusion and oxygen consumption near the RVA pacing site30,34,35 and in the septum during LBBB.36,37 Such perfusion defects and wall motion abnormalities have been demonstrated in up to 70% of patients with angiographically normal coronary arteries exposed to chronic RVA pacing.38–41 These defects are reversible on cessation of RVA pacing39,41 and after biventricular pacing.36,37,42 Accordingly, such perfusion "deficits" do not necessarily indicate coronary heart disease, because they may simply express the regional differences in myocardial workload.
Similar to the situation after myocardial infarction, acute loss of pump function initiates compensatory responses (Figure 2). Some of these responses may, after a certain time and/or certain degree of asynchrony, lead to further impairment of pump function and clinical heart failure. There are various triggers for these "remodeling" processes. As is the case for other conditions of hemodynamic overload, RVA pacing and LBBB lead to stimulation of the sympathetic system resulting in elevated myocardial catecholamine levels43 and activation of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system. Regional differences in stretch and mechanical load heterogeneity are most likely important stimuli for remodeling processes. Chronic asynchronous LV activation results in asymmetrical hypertrophy44 and locally different molecular abnormalities including reductions in sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium-ATPase and phospholamban.45 Even stronger regional differences in gene expression are found in failing hearts with conduction abnormalities.46 In addition, LV cavity volume increases with longer duration of RVA pacing and LBBB. Dystrophic calcifications, disorganized mitochondria, and myofibrillar cellular disarray47 have been described with RVA pacing, especially in immature hearts.
|
Early signs of cellular and molecular adaptation to disturbed ventricular activation are manifest as reduction in ejection fraction (EF) within the first week of RVA pacing. Nahlawi et al31 showed, in patients with normal EF, an immediate drop in EF of
7%, followed by another 7% drop during the subsequent week. Suppression of RVA pacing returned EF to baseline values, but only after several days.31,48 Also, ventricular repolarization abnormalities have been observed within hours of RVA pacing.31,48 Alterations in potassium and calcium channels likely play a role in these phenomena.
Mechanistic Basis for Development of Heart Failure Due to Long-Term RVA Pacing or LBBB
As mentioned above, synchronous activation consistently leads to short- and long-term adverse effects on cardiac pump function, which create a vicious circle of deterioration. Accordingly, the frequency of RVA stimulation has been linked to increased risks of AF, heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias, and death in large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).49–56 Similar risks have been reported for LBBB and cardiac morbidity and mortality.57
Multiple factors may contribute to heart failure associated with RVA pacing and LBBB. At least 4 candidate factors are readily identified: (1) reduced pump function due to asynchronous contraction (dyssynchrony), (2) adverse remodeling due to long-term dyssynchrony, (3) left-sided AV desynchronization, and (4) functional MR (fMR). The first 3 mechanisms have been discussed above. With regard to the fourth mechanism, new onset of mild to moderate fMR and worsening of preexisting MR have been described in 49% and 14% of pacemaker patients, respectively.58 Functional MR is also found in LBBB patients.24,25,59 The mechanism of such fMR has multiple components. The immediate cause is papillary muscle desynchronization due to ventricular conduction delay,24,25 thus increasing time to peak strain between papillary muscle insertion sites.24,25 In addition, volumetric remodeling probably contributes to fMR by increasing papillary muscle tethering forces60 and reducing the transmitral pressure gradient.59
The complex relationship between ventricular conduction delay, due to RVA pacing or LBBB, and heart failure appears to have 3 primary elements: (1) "dose" of asynchrony, (2) substrate, and (3) time. With regard to pacing-induced asynchrony, the risk of heart failure increases with increasing paced QRSd and with high cumulative percentages of RVA pacing.49,61,62 The total burden of ventricular desynchronization can be conceptualized as a function of the paced QRSd, which is a measure of "potency per dose" and the cumulative percent RVA pacing, which is the frequency at which the dose is delivered61 (Figure 3). The importance of the third element of the desynchronization burden (exposure time) becomes clear when attention is paid to young pacemaker patients. Several studies have shown that some of these patients, exposed to chronic RVA pacing, develop significant LV remodeling in young adulthood that progresses to DCM in about 7% of the population.63–67
|
The importance of the "background substrate" for the development of heart failure is evident from the fact that the standard practice of RVA pacing over the past 40 years has not triggered an epidemic of pacing-induced heart failure. In the Mode Selection Trial, only 10% of patients over a median follow-up of 33 months had heart failure that could be linked to RVA pacing.49 This is because most typical pacemaker patients are elderly, have normal ventricular function, and no preexisting ventricular conduction delay, heart failure, or myocardial infarction (low risk substrate). Although RVA pacing immediately and increasingly reduces LV EF31 and reduces diastolic function,32,68,69 such patients tolerate chronic RVA pacing reasonably well, and the 2-year probability of heart failure that can be linked to pacing is approximately 1.4%61 (Figure 4). This likely explains the relative insensitivity of clinical outcomes to cumulative percent RVA pacing in pacemaker trials. Importantly, approximately 90% of pacemaker recipients are >60 years old, and
30% are >80 years old in many nations.70 Advanced age and a high comorbidity rate in typical pacemaker patients also mean that most will not live long enough to be harmed by their pacemaker (insufficient exposure time).71 On the other hand, typical patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have most or all of these substrate conditions, and the relative risk of heart failure associated with RVA pacing rises to approximately 52% over 2 years61 (Figure 4). This provides some explanation for the observation that it took 3 to 5 years before heart failure attributed to RVA pacing became manifest in pacemaker trials, but <1 year in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator trials.
|
The highest risk of RVA pacing–induced heart failure is observed in patients with reduced EF, prior heart failure, and preexisting ventricular conduction delay55,61,72 (Figure 4). The increased risk of heart failure associated with RVA pacing superimposed on LBBB and myocardial infarction provides clinical evidence that pacing worsens preexisting ventricular conduction delay as demonstrated in endocardial mapping studies >20 years ago.14 RVA pacing–induced conduction delays exceeded spontaneous LBBB conduction delays in heart failure patients (EF <40%) compared with patients with normal EF, and the pacing-induced increases in QRSd in patients with heart failure were more pronounced when baseline QRSd was >120 ms.23 In the Dual chamber And VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) trial, increased risks of heart failure and death during RVA pacing were almost entirely concentrated among patients with baseline QRSd >110 ms, providing evidence that pacing-induced worsening of preexisting ventricular conduction delay contributes to adverse clinical outcomes.
The evidence for a role of RVA pacing in the development of heart failure is easier to determine than for LBBB, because the latter abnormality starts silently and is associated with widespread comorbidity. The Framingham study showed that the appearance of complete LBBB was usually associated with underlying comorbidity.73 Clinical heart failure developed coincident or soon after the emergence of LBBB in 28% of patients who were initially free from heart failure (7 times increased relative risk in patients versus controls), the mean time interval from the onset of LBBB to first episode of heart failure being 3.3 years. QRSd in LBBB provides an independent predictor of deterioration of clinical status and need for heart transplantation in patients with LV systolic dysfunction.74
There is some intriguing evidence that LBBB may be the primary cause of DCM in some patients. Progressive LV enlargement after the emergence of LBBB unaccompanied by any other explanation has been documented in case series.75 Furthermore, complete recovery of ventricular function shortly after initiation of biventricular pacing in so-called hyper-responders suggests that LBBB may be a primary and reversible trigger of DCM in some patients.76,77
Several studies also showed that LBBB is associated with increased mortality, the impact being higher the sicker the patient population was. The relative risk associated with the presence of LBBB in these studies varies roughly between 1.5 and 2.0, even after adjustment for covariates (reviewed in Ref. 57). The only study rejecting the idea that LBBB is associated with increased mortality drew this conclusion after adjustments for LV EF as a covariable.78 However, the conclusion that LBBB is not an independent predictor of mortality after the adjustment for EF can be understood because LBBB directly reduces EF because of its acute and chronic effect on LV pump function (see above).
|
Strategies to Reduce the Adverse Effects of Ventricular Conduction Delay on Pump Function |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionConsequences of Uncoupling at...Strategies to Reduce the...Mechanisms of Cardiac...Clinical Experience With CRTReferences |
|---|
Dual-Chamber Minimal Ventricular Pacing
In patients with symptomatic bradycardia due to sinus node disease and heart failure patients requiring rate support, the primary strategy is to preserve normal ventricular conduction by minimizing ventricular pacing using new dual-chamber enhanced AAI/R pacing algorithms. These algorithms have been recently demonstrated to be highly effective and safe.50,79,80 One such algorithm reduced the relative risk of persistent AF by 40% compared with conventional dual-chamber RVA pacing,81 a decrease that was accompanied by fewer heart failure hospitalizations and interventions for AF.81
Alternative Ventricular Pacing Strategies
Whether alternative ventricular pacing strategies could mitigate the adverse effects of ventricular desynchronization during obligatory pacing remains an open area of clinical investigation. Because pacing leads are usually implanted along the transvenous route, alternative sites within the RV have been studied intensively. Acute hemodynamic studies generally, although not consistently, show an advantage of high septal over RVA pacing (reviewed in Ref. 82). However, small enrollment and inconsistent methods and definition of the "high septum" hinder the interpretation of these studies. Two longer-term studies have shown that high septal pacing reduces perfusion defects, remodeling, and neurohormonal activation.40,83
Pacing the His bundle preserves native ventricular activation and yields QRSd, electrical axis, and activation sequence identical to normal ventricular conduction. Studies in the electrophysiology laboratory have shown favorable effects of His bundle pacing on cardiac performance compared with RVA pacing.84 Permanent His bundle pacing has been achieved in humans by only a few specialists.85,86 Development of new tools may facilitate this otherwise complicated procedure.86
A few publications indicate that LV pacing may improve hemodynamics, even beyond that during His bundle pacing, suggesting that in patients with LV systolic dysfunction, maintenance of natural ventricular conduction may not be the ultimate goal, even in the presence of a relatively narrow QRS complex.87,88 In hearts with normal ventricular conduction, LV pumping function is less adversely affected by pacing from most LV sites than by RVA pacing.11,88–90 Within the LV, some sites are better than others. Importantly, the better sites for normally conducting ventricles are different from those in ventricles with LBBB-like conduction abnormalities. Studies in animals91 and children92 showed that pacing at the inferoapical LV septum and the epicardium of the LV apex yields LV pumping function that closely approximates function during normal ventricular conduction. These results may be explained by rapid engagement of the specialized conduction systems in the LV wall near its "break-out" site.92 Switching from RV to LV apex pacing dramatically improved cardiac function in a child with congenital AV block.93
Because the activation pattern during RVA pacing is similar to that during LBBB, it is not surprising that biventricular pacing has been used to reduce ventricular desynchronization during obligatory pacing. Although biventricular pacing reduces regional mechanical activation heterogeneity compared with RVA pacing, dyssynchrony persists compared with normal ventricular activation.9 Preliminary results have been encouraging among patients with systolic heart failure and sinus rhythm.94–96 However, the situation is less clear when RVA and biventricular pacing are compared in AF patients immediately after AV junction ablation97,98 presumably because the benefits of rate control in AF conceal the effect of asynchronous activation.
It is therefore important to recognize that biventricular pacing in hearts without conduction abnormalities at best reduces the amount of desynchronization when compared with RVA pacing, whereas biventricular pacing in hearts with ventricular conduction block can correct asynchronous contraction patterns, as will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
|
Mechanisms of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionConsequences of Uncoupling at...Strategies to Reduce the...Mechanisms of Cardiac...Clinical Experience With CRTReferences |
|---|
Fixed and functional disruptions to normal electromechanical ordering due to conduction delay serve as potential targets for electromechanical reconstitution of pump function. The basis of this therapeutic strategy is to restore coordinated contraction by minimizing the conduction delay, thereby restoring interventricular and intraventricular coupling. A second-order effect is the reduction of left-sided AV uncoupling, which may improve diastolic performance and thereby LV pumping function. As part of this effect, fMR may be reduced. These acute beneficial hemodynamic effects may lead to even more beneficial long-term effects, because many adverse molecular and cellular derangements, elicited by chronic RVA pacing or LBBB (Figure 2), appear to be reversible. This property of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is remarkable, because many (pharmacological) therapies tend to lose their effectiveness over time, whereas the beneficial effects of CRT are maintained for many years. The best explanation of the lasting benefit of CRT is that it largely restores the normal electromechanical coupling of the heart with LBBB. This idea is supported by studies in the canine models where CRT42 abolished all adverse effects of LBBB. Thus, CRT may be "curative" of LBBB-induced ventricular desynchronapathy in some situations.
Improved Ventricular Mechanics Due to Reduction in Ventricular Conduction Delay
Reduction of intraventricular delay during atrial-synchronous LV or biventricular pacing has an immediate positive effect on ventricular mechanics. Instantaneous improvement in pump function is indicated by increases in LV dP/dtmax, stroke volume, stroke work, arterial pulse pressure and peak systolic pressure,99,100 and reduced end-systolic volume (Figure 5). Moreover, unlike the inotropic effects of dobutamine, systolic augmentation with ventricular resynchronization increases efficiency of conversion of myocardial oxygen consumption to mechanical work.101 This positive contractile response demonstrates a modestly positive correlation with increasing baseline QRSd99–101 and is strongly correlated with baseline mechanical dyssynchrony.101,102 Conversely, improved contractility does not require QRS narrowing during LV or biventricular pacing.26,99,101
|
Early acute hemodynamic studies demonstrated that the relationship between AV delay and LV dP/dtmax among patients with an acute improvement in contractile response to simultaneous biventricular pacing is positive and unimodal with a peak effect at approximately 50% of the native PR interval (Figure 6), resulting in complete replacement of native ventricular conduction with paced activation.99,100,103 LV dP/dtmax increased 15% to 45% across a narrow range of AV delays and declined at very short AV delays (truncated filling times) or very long AV delays (inadequate correction of LV conduction delay).99,100,103 The maximum improvement in pump function occurs at minimal intraventricular asynchrony and unchanged LV end-diastolic pressure (preload).13 This indicates that the acute contractile response is explained by ventricular resynchronization, not by better filling.
|
The AV delay and the interventricular (VV) interval have an interactive relationship. The effect of AV delay on acute hemodynamic response to CRT is best understood in terms of the effect on ventricular resynchronization during biventricular or left univentricular pacing (Figure 7). During LBBB, the RV is activated by RBB conduction (RBBc) before the LV, and the time difference between RV and LV activation is the interventricular conduction delay.13 Biventricular pacing at short AV delays results in complete replacement of intrinsic activation, thereby allowing complete control of chamber timing with sequential ventricular stimulation. Intermediate AV delays result in fusion between RBBc, RV paced activation, and LV paced activation. Long AV delays result in "pure" fusion between RBBc and LV paced activation because LV preexcitation is still possible because of interventricular conduction delay.13,104,105 Modification of the AV delay alone can therefore achieve (1) biventricular paced fusion, (2) biventricular paced fusion with sequential ventricular stimulation (LV first), and (3) "pure" RBBc-LV pacing fusion.
|
The best ventricular resynchronization occurs when the wavefronts from the RV pacing site (or originating from RBBc) and the LV pacing site collide halfway (fusion).106 Experimental evidence suggests that optimal hemodynamic effect can be achieved using LV pacing at certain AV delays as well as using simultaneous and sequential biventricular pacing because fusion of electrical wavefronts can be achieved by either approach.13,107
Although this and other experimental studies show a clear mechanism of action for optimizing the interaction between AV and VV timing, confusion in this area is large, and a clinical advantage of patient-specific timing optimization has not been convincingly demonstrated in clinical trials.108–110
Reverse Volumetric LV Remodeling
Sustained improvement in ventricular mechanics results in regression of adverse LV remodeling, termed reverse remodeling. This results in reductions in LV volumes and mass, reduced mitral orifice size, regression of asymmetrical hypertrophy, and increased ejection fraction.111–119 The magnitude of the reduction in end-systolic volume ranges between 10% and 30%,111,115,120,121 which is equivalent to or greater than the effects of β-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. These hemodynamic effects are chronically sustained assuming LV pacing is continuously maintained.118 Although improvement in New York Heart Association class, quality of life, and 6-minute walk tests may be confounded by placebo effects and reporting bias, reverse remodeling is a completely objective measure. More importantly, it appears to be related to better survival.121
Evidence of baseline mechanical dyssynchrony and acute mechanical resynchronization appears to be necessary for reverse remodeling to occur, and the greater the reduction in dyssynchrony, the higher the probability of remodeling.119,122 Likewise, absence of mechanical resynchronization acutely eliminates the possibility of chronic reverse remodeling.119 In canine hearts with induced LBBB, it was shown that 8 weeks of CRT was sufficient to almost completely reverse the 25% LV cavity dilation and asymmetrical LV hypertrophy induced by dyssynchrony to pre-LBBB baseline values.42 This observation has been replicated in clinical studies where in some cases, reverse remodeling results in complete normalization of LV volumes and ejection fraction.76 This suggests the intriguing possibility that ventricular conduction delay may be the primary cause of DCM in some patients,75–77 as it was in a more moderate degree in the LBBB dogs.
Reduction in Functional Mitral Regurgitation
In many patients CRT reduces fMR. This can be attributed to 3 mechanisms: (1) Improved contractility reduces fMR instantaneously and is quantitatively related to an increase in LV dP/dtmax and transmitral pressure59; (2) ventricular resynchronization shortens interpapillary muscle delay, which instantaneously reduces fMR because of more coordinated papillary muscle activation24,25; and (3) reverse volumetric LV remodeling reduces fMR chronically by reducing LV volumes and sphericity, which reduces tethering forces on the mitral valve. In an acute study in patients selected for the presence of fMR, Breithardt et al59 estimated that CRT reduced regurgitant flow from 32 to 19 mL/beat. It is not well understood what part of the benefit of CRT is due to reduction in fMR versus resynchronization of contraction directly, because few studies quantitatively measure regurgitant flow.
|
Clinical Experience With CRT |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionConsequences of Uncoupling at...Strategies to Reduce the...Mechanisms of Cardiac...Clinical Experience With CRTReferences |
|---|
CRT pacing is an effective adjunctive treatment for moderately severely symptomatic heart failure associated with DCM and ventricular conduction delay. RCTs involving >5000 patients have demonstrated modest, concordant improvements in functional class, exercise tolerance, and quality of life.123–126 Heart failure hospitalizations are reduced by 29% to 52%, heart failure death by 51%, sudden cardiac death by 46%, and total mortality by 40%.126–128
CRT Responders and Nonresponders
A CRT responder is generally defined as a patient who feels better, has less heart failure morbidity, and demonstrates evidence of reverse remodeling; a nonresponder exhibits none of these. Approximately 18% to 30% of patients who meet current implantation criteria are nonresponders.123,129,130 Techniques for selecting patients with significant ventricular dyssynchrony likely to benefit from CRT are rapidly evolving. The optimal criteria would identify all patients with a high probability of response and reject all patients with a low probability of response. The reasons for CRT nonresponse are complex and incompletely characterized but likely explained by interactions between patient-specific substrate and left ventricular stimulation technique.
Assuming that heterogeneous mechanical activation is due to ventricular conduction delay, positive alteration of LV activation that corrects conduction delay should reduce contractile dyssynchrony and improve pump function. Four reasons why this may fail are (1) stimulation from the wrong site; (2) unexpected failure to positively alter activation sequence due to preexisting ventricular conduction blocks; (3) new conduction blocks that arise during LV pacing, which may reduce or prevent mechanical resynchronization or aggravate dyssynchrony; or (4) absence of real conduction blocks at baseline, such as in patients with prolonged QRSd caused by diffuse slow conduction.
Resynchronization is thought to be optimal when stimulating at the latest electrically activated region of the LV, which should correspond to the region of greatest mechanical delay assuming good electromechanical coupling. However, it seems likely that a proper sequence of conduction is equally important, and this might be achieved from different locations. This most delayed region is usually on the posterior or posterolateral basal wall, as demonstrated by endocardial voltage mapping15,16,18 and myocardial velocity imaging.19,131,132 LV stimulation at these sites improves acute contractile response, functional capacity, and possibly mortality compared with anterior sites.133–137 LV stimulation at anterior sites may even worsen contractile response in some patients by exaggerating intraventricular dyssynchrony. A posterior or posterolateral basal site was obtained in only 67% to 77% of patients in RCTs of CRT,123,138 and it is likely that inadequate LV stimulation sites contribute significantly to CRT nonresponse.
Breakdowns in electromechanical coupling due to fixed or functional conduction blocks may occur locally or globally and disrupt resynchronization. Functional block that arises only during LV pacing may worsen ventricular conduction delay (Figure 8). Fixed lines of conduction block due to scar may result in large regions of delayed myocardium despite electrical resynchronization measured at the pacing sites (Figure 8). Both situations may contribute to nonresponse.20
|
Ventricular asynchrony has been shown to predict acute and chronic response (including remodeling) to CRT.102,112,119,139–142 Although QRSd correlates only modestly with ventricular asynchrony, more severe baseline conduction delay (QRS >150 ms) is predictive of acute improvement in contractile response, short-term improvements in exercise tolerance and quality of life,143 and long-term reductions in mortality and heart failure hospitalization,144 whereas none of these benefits were consistently observed among patients with less severe conduction delay (QRS 120 to 150 ms). In this situation, CRT may induce dyssynchrony and worsen pump function.9,145 Furthermore, CRT does not benefit patients with ventricular conduction delay due to right bundle-branch block because significant LV asynchrony is generally absent.144,146
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Disclosures
Michael O. Sweeney, MD, has received grant support, honoraria for speaking, and is a paid consultant to Medtronic, Inc. Frits W. Prinzen has received grant support from Medtronic, Boston Scientific Corporation, and EBR Systems, and is a paid consultant to Medtronic, Inc.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionConsequences of Uncoupling at...Strategies to Reduce the...Mechanisms of Cardiac...Clinical Experience With CRTReferences |
|---|
1. Sakamoto S-I, Nitta T, Ishii Y, Miyagi Y, Ohmori H, Shimizu K. Interatrial electrical connections: the precise location and preferential conduction. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005; 16: 1077–1086.[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Bailin SJ, Adler S, Giudici M. Prevention of chronic atrial fibrillation by pacing in the region of Bachmann’s Bundle: results of a multicenter randomized trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2001; 12: 912–917.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Hettrick DA, Mittelstadt JR, Kehl F, Kress TT, Tessmer JP, Krolikowski JG, Kersten JR, Warltier DC, Pagel PS. Atrial pacing lead location alters the hemodynamic effects of atrial-ventricular delay in dogs with pacing induced cardiomyopathy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003; 26 (4 Pt 1): 853–861.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Mabo P, Pouillot C, Kermarrec A, LeLong B, Lebreton H, Daubert C. Lack of physiological adaptation of the atrioventricular interval to heart rate in patients chronically paced in the AAIR mode. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1991; 14: 2133–2142.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Grant SC, Bennett DH. Atrial latency in a dual chambered pacing system causing inappropriate sequence of cardiac chamber activation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1992; 15: 116–118.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Chirife R, Ortega DF, Salazar AI. Nonphysiological left heart AV intervals as a result of DDD and AAI "physiological" pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1991; 14 (11 Pt 2): 1752–1756.[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Sweeney MO, Ellenbogen KA, Tang ASL, Johnson J, Belk P, Sheldon T. Severe atrioventricular decoupling, uncoupling and ventriculoatrial coupling during enhanced atrial pacing: incidence, mechanisms and implications for minimizing right ventricular pacing in ICD patients. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. In press.
8. Durrer D, Van Dam R. TH, Freud GE, Janse MJ, Meijler FL, Arzbaecher RC. Total excitation of the isolated human heart. Circulation. 1970; 41: 899–912.
9. Wyman BT, Hunter WC, Prinzen FW, Farris OP, McVeigh ER. Effects of single- and biventricular pacing on temporal and spatial dynamics of ventricular contraction. Am J Physiol. 2002; 282: H372–H379.
10. Wiggers C. The muscular reactions of the mammalian ventricles to artificial surface stimuli. Am J Physiol. 1925; 73: 346–378.
11. Prinzen FW, Peschar M. Relation between the pacing induced sequence of activation and left ventricular pump function in animals. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2002; 25 (4 Pt 1): 484–498.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Verbeek XA, Vernooy K, Peschar M, Cornelussen RNM, Prinzen FW: Intra-ventricular resynchronization for optimal left ventricular function during pacing in experimental left bundle branch block. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42: 558–567.
13. Vernooy K, Verbeek XAAM, Cornelussen RNM, Dijkman B, Crijns HJGM, Arts T, Prinzen FW. Calculation of effective VV interval facilitates optimization of AV delay and VV interval in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2006; 4: 75–82.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Vassalo JA, Cassidy DM, Miller JM, Buxton AE, Marchlinski FE, Josephson ME. Left ventricular endocardial activation during right ventricular pacing: effect of underlying heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986; 7: 1228–1233.[Abstract]
15. Vassallo JA, Cassidy DM, Machlinski FE, Buxton AE, Waxman HL, Doherty JU, Josephson ME. Endocardial activation of left bundle branch block. Circulation. 1984; 69: 914–923.
16. Rodriguez LM, Timmermans C, Nabar A, Beatty G, Wellens HJ. Variable patterns of septal activation in patients with left bundle branch block. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2003; 14: 135–141.[Medline]
17. Lambiase PD, Rinaldi A, Hauck J, Mobb M, Elliott D, Mohammad S, Gill JS, Bucknall CA. Non-contact left ventricular endocardial mapping in cardiac resynchronisation therapy. Heart. 2004; 90: 44–51.
18. Auricchio A, Fantoni C, Regoli F, Carbucicchio C, Goette A, Geller C, Kloss M, Klein H. Characterization of left ventricular activation in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block. Circulation. 2004; 109: 1133–1139.
19. Fung JW, Yu CM, Yip G, Zhang Y, Chan H, Kum CC, Sanderson JE. Variable left ventricular activation pattern in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block. Heart. 2004; 90: 3–4.
20. Jia P, Ramanathan C, Ghanem RN, Kyungmoo R, Varma N, Rudy Y. Electrocardiographic imaging of cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: observation of variable electrophysiologic responses. Heart Rhythm. 2006; 3: 296–310.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Bax JJ, Ansalone G, Breithardt OA, Derumeaux G, Leclercq C, Schalij MJ, Sogaard P, St John Sutton M, Nihoyannopoulos P. Echocardiographic evaluation of cardiac resynchronization therapy: ready for routine clinical use? A critical appraisal. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 1–9.
22. Grines CL, Boshore TW, Boudoulas H, Olson S, Shafer P, Wooley CF. Functional abnormalities in isolated left bundle branch block: the effect of interventricular asynchrony. Circulation. 1989; 79: 845–853.
23. Varma N. Left ventricular conduction delays induced by right ventricular apical pacing: effect of left ventricular dysfunction and bundle branch block. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2008; 19: 114–122.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Kanzaki H, Bazaz R, Schwartzman D, Dohi K, Sade LE, Gorscan J III. A mechanism for immediate reduction in mitral regurgitation after cardiac resynchronization therapy: insights from mechanical activation strain mapping. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 1619–1625.
25. Ypenburg C, Lancellotti P, Tops LF, Bleeker GB, Holman ER, Pierard LA, Schalij MJ, Bax JJ. Acute effects of initiation and withdrawal of cardiac resynchronization therapy on papillary muscle dyssynchrony and mitral regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50: 2071–2077.
26. Leclercq C, Faris O, Tunin R, Johnson J, Kato R, Evans F, Spinelli J, Halperin H, McVeigh E, Kass DA. Systolic improvement and mechanical resynchronization does not require electrical synchrony in the dilated failing heart with left bundle-branch block. Circulation. 2002; 106: 1760–1763.
27. Lardo AC, Abraham TP, Kass DA. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of ventricular dyssynchrony: current and emerging concepts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46: 2223–2228.
28. Wyman BT, Hunter WC, Prinzen FW, McVeigh ER. Mapping propagation of mechanical activation in the paced heart with MRI tagging. Am J Physiol. 1999; 276: H881–H891.[Medline]
29. Prinzen FW, Hunter WC, Wyman BT, McVeigh E. Mapping of regional myocardial strain and work during ventricular pacing: experimental study using magnetic resonance imaging tagging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 33: 1735–1742.
30. Baller D, Wolpers H-G, Zipfel J, Bretschneider H-J, Hellige G. Comparison of the effects of right atrial, right ventricular apex, and atrioventricular sequential pacing on myocardial oxygen consumption and cardiac efficiency: a laboratory investigation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1988; 11: 394–403.[CrossRef][Medline]
31. Nahlawi M, Waligora M, Spies SM, Bonow RO, Kadish AH, Goldberger J. Left ventricular function during and after right ventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 1883–1888.
32. Zile M, Blaustein A, Shimizu G, Gaasch WH. Right ventricular pacing reduces the rate of left ventricular relaxation and filling. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987; 10: 702–709.[Abstract]
33. Zhou Q, Henein M, Coats A, Gibson D. Different effects of abnormal activation and myocardial disease on left ventricular ejection and filling times. Heart. 2000; 84: 272–276.
34. Prinzen FW, Augustijn CH, Arts T, Allessi MA, Reneman RS. Redistribution of myocardial fiber strain and blood flow by asynchronous activation. Am J Physiol. 1990; 259 (2 Pt 2): H300–H308.[Medline]
35. Delhaas T, Arts T, Prinzen FW, Reneman RS. Regional fiber stress-fiber strain as estimate of regional oxygen demand in the canine heart. J Physiol (Lond). 1994; 477: 481–496.
36. Vernooy K, Verbeek XAAM, Peschar M, Crijns HJGM, Arts T, Cornelussen RNM, Prinzen FW. Left bundle branch block induces ventricular remodeling and functional septal hypoperfusion. Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 91–98.
37. Nowak B, Sinha AM, Schaefer WM, Koch KC, Kaiser HJ, Hanrath P, Buell U, Stellbrink C. Cardiac resynchronization therapy homogenizes myocardial glucose metabolism and perfusion in dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41: 1523–1528.
38. Tse H-F, Lau CP. Long-term effect of right ventricular pacing on myocardial perfusion and function. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997; 29: 744–749.[Abstract]
39. Nielsen JC, Bottcher M, Nielsen TT, Pedersen AK, Andersen HR. Regional myocardial blood flow in patients with sick sinus syndrome randomized to long-term single chamber or dual chamber pacing-effect of pacing mode and rate. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35: 1453–1461.
40. Tse HF, Yu C, Wong KK, Tsang V, Leung YL, Ho WY, Lau VP. Functional abnormalities in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing: the effect of sites of electrical stimulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40: 1451–1458.
41. ten Cate TJF, Visser FC, Panhuyzen-Goedkoop NM, Verzijlbergen JF, van Hemel NB. Pacemaker-related myocardial perfusion defects worsen during higher pacing rate and coronary flow augmentation. Heart Rhythm. 2005; 2: 1058–1063.[CrossRef][Medline]
42. Vernooy K, Cornelussen RN, Verbeek XA, Vanagt WY, van Hunnik A, Kuiper M, Arts T, Crijns HJ, Prinzen FW. Cardiac resynchronization therapy cures dyssynchronopathy in canine left bundle-branch block hearts. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28: 2148–2155.
43. Lee MA, Dae MW, Langberg JL, Griffin JC, Chin MC, Finkbeiner WE, O'Connell JW, Botvinick I, Scheinmann MM, Rosenqvist M. Effects of long-term right ventricular pacing on left ventricular perfusion, innervation, function and histology. J Am coll Cardiol. 1994; 24: 225–232.[Abstract]
44. Van Oosterhout MFM, Prinzen FW, Arts T, Schreuder JJ, Vanagt WY, Cleutjens JP, Reneman RS. Asynchronous electrical activation induces asymmetrical hypertrophy of the left ventricular wall. Circulation. 1998; 98: 588–595.
45. Spragg DD, Akar FG, Helm RH, Tunin RS, Tomaselli GF, Kass DA. Abnormal conduction and repolarization in late-activated myocardium of dyssynchronously contracting hearts. Cardiovasc Res. 2005; 67: 77–86.
46. Spragg DD, Leclercq C, Loghmani M, Faris OP, Tunin RS, DiSilvestre D, McVeigh ER, Tomaselli GF, Kass DA. Regional alterations in protein expression in the dyssynchronous failing heart. Circulation. 2003; 108: 929–932.
47. Karpawhich PP, Justice CD, Cavitt DK, Chang CH. Developmental sequelae of fixed rate ventricular pacing in the immature canine heart: an electrophysiologic, hemodynamic and histopathologic evaluation. Am Heart J. 1990; 119: 1077–1083.[Medline]
48. Wecke L, Rubulis A, Lundahl G, Rosen MR, Bergfeldt L. Right ventricular pacing-induced electrophysiologic remodeling in the human heart and its relationship to cardiac memory. Heart Rhythm. 2007; 4: 1477–1486.[CrossRef][Medline]
49. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Greenspon AJ, Freedman RA, Lee KL, Lamas GA. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003; 23: 2932–2937.
50. Sweeney MO, Bank AJ, Nsah E, Koullick M, Zeng QC, Hettrick D, Sheldon T, Lamas GA. Minimizing ventricular pacing to reduce atrial fibrillation in sinus-node disease. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357: 1000–1008.
51. The DAVID Trial Investigators. Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial. JAMA. 2002; 288: 3115–3123.
52. Steinberg JS, Fischer A, Wang P, Schuger C, Daubert J, McNitt S, Andrews M, Brown M, Hall JW, Zareba W, Moss AJ. The clinical implications of cumulative right ventricular pacing in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Trial II. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005; 16: 359–365.[Medline]
53. Nielsen JC, Kristensen L, Andersen HR, Mortensen PT, Pedersen O, Pedersen AK. A randomized comparison of atrial and dual-chamber pacing in 177 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome: echocardiographic and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42: 614–623.
54. Goldenberg I, Moss AJ, Hall WJ, McNitt S, Zareba W, Andrews ML, Cannom DS, for the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II Investigators. Causes and consequences of heart failure after prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II. Circulation. 2006; 113: 2810–2817.
55. Hayes JJ, Sharma AD, Love JC, Herre JM, Leonen AO, Kudenchuk PJ, for the DAVID Investigators. Abnormal conduction increases risk of adverse outcomes from right ventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48: 1628–1633.
56. Smit MD, Van Dessel PFHM, Nieuwland W, Wiesfeld ACP, Tan ES, Anthonio RL, Erven LV, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Van Gelder ICV. Right ventricular pacing and the risk of heart failure in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients. Heart rhythm. 2006; 3: 1397–1403.[CrossRef][Medline]
57. Zannad F, Huvelle E, Dickstein K, J. van Veldhuisen D, Stellbrink C, Kober L, Cazeau S, Ritter P, Pietro Maggioni A, Ferrari R, Lechat P. Left bundle branch block as a risk factor for progression to heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007; 9: 7–14.
58. Chen L, Hodge D, Jahangir A, Ozcan C, Trusty J, Friedman P, Rea R, Bradley B, Brady P, Hammill S, Hayes D, Shen W-K. Preserved left ventricular ejection fraction following atrioventricular junction ablation and pacing for atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2008; 19: 19–27.[Medline]
59. Breithardt OA, Sinha AM, Schwammenthal E, Bidaoui N, Markus KU, Franke A, Stellbrink C. Acute effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on functional mitral regurgitation in advanced systolic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 203: 765–770.
60. Otsuji Y, Gilon D, Jiang L, He D, Leavitt M, Roy MJ, Birmingham MJ, Levine RA. Restricted diastolic opening of the mitral leaflets in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: evidence for increased valve tethering. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 32: 398–404.
61. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS. Heart failure during cardiac pacing. Circulation. 2006; 113: 2082–2088.
62. Zhang X-H, Chen H, Kai-Hang Y, Chan W-S, Lee KL, Chan H-W, Lee SW, Fu G-S, Lau C-P, Tse H-F. New-onset heart failure after permanent right ventricular apical pacing in patients with acquired high-grade atrioventricular block and normal left ventricular function. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2008; 19: 136–141.[CrossRef][Medline]
63. Thambo J-B, Bordachar P, Garrigue S, Lafitte S, Sanders P, Reuter S, Girardot R, Crepin D, Reant P, Roudaut R, Jais P, Haissaguerre M, Clementy J, Jiminez M. Detrimental ventricular remodeling in patients with congenital complete heart block and chronic right ventricular apical pacing. Circulation. 2004; 110: 3766–3772.
64. Karpawhich P, Mital S. Comparative left ventricular function following atrial, septal and apical single chamber heart pacing in the young. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997; 20: 1983–1988.[CrossRef][Medline]
65. Tantengco MV, Thomas RL, Karpawich PP. Left ventricular dysfunction after long-term tight ventricular apical pacing in the young. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37: 2093–2100.
66. Moak JP, Barron KS, Hougen TJ, Wiles HB, Balaji S, Sreeram N, Cohen MH, Nordenberg A, Van Hare GF, Friedman RA, Perez M, Cecchin F, Schneider DS, Neghme RA, Buyon JP. Congenital heart block: development of late-onset cardiomyopathy, a previously underappreciated sequela. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37: 238–242.
67. Kim JJ, Friedman RA, Eidem BW, Cannon BC, Arora G, Smith EO, Fenrich AL, Kertesz NJ. Ventricular function and long-term pacing in children with congenital complete atrioventricular block. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2007; 18: 373–377.[CrossRef][Medline]
68. Park C, Little W, O'Rourke RA. Effect of alteration of left ventricular activation sequence on the left ventricular end-systolic pressure-volume relation in closed-chest dogs. Circ Res. 1985; 57: 706–717.
69. Alessandrini RS, McPherson DD, Kadish AH, Kane BJ, Goldberger JJ. Cardiac memory: a mechanical and electrical phenomenon. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 1997; 272: H1952–H1959.
70. Mond HG, Irwin M, Morillo C, Ector H. The world survey of cardiac pacing and cardioverter defibrillators: calendar year 2001. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2004; 27: 955–964.[CrossRef][Medline]
71. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Lamas GA. Reduced ejection fraction, sudden cardiac death and heart failure death in the Mode Selection Trial: implications for device selection in elderly patients with sinus node disease. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. In press.
72. Shukla HH, Hellkamp AS, James EA, Flaker GC, Lee KL, Sweeney MO, Lamas G, for the Mode Selection Trial (MOST) Investigators. Heart failure hospitalization is more common in pacemaker patients with a prolonged paced QRS duration. Heart Rhythm. 2005; 2: 245–251.[CrossRef][Medline]
73. Schneider JF, Thomas HE, Jr, Kreger BE, McNamara PM, Kannel WB. Newly acquired left bundle branch block: the Framingham study. Ann Intern Med. 1979; 90: 303–310.
74. Grigioni F, Barbieri A, Magnani G, Potena L, Coccolo F, Boriani G, Specchia S, Carigi S, Musuraca A, Zannoli R, Magelli C, Branzi A. Serial versus isolated assessment of clinical and instrumental parameters in heart failure: prognostic and therapeutic implications. Am Heart J. 2003; 146: 298–303.[CrossRef][Medline]
75. Lee SJ, McCullouch C, Mangat I, Foster E, De Marco T, Saxon LA. Isolated bundle branch block and left ventricular dysfunction. J Card Fail. 2003; 9: 87–92.[CrossRef][Medline]
76. Blanc JJ, Fatemi M, Bertault V, Baraket F, Etienne Y. Evaluation of left bundle branch block as a reversible cause of non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy with severe heart failure. A new concept of left ventricular dyssynchrony-induced cardiomyopathy. Europace. 2005; 7: 604–610.
77. Castellant P, Fatemi M, Bertault-Valls V, Yves Etienne Y, Blanc JJ. Cardiac resynchronization therapy: "nonresponders" and "hyperresponders". Heart Rhythm. 2008; 5: 193–197.[CrossRef][Medline]
78. Stenestrand U, Tabrizi F, Lindback J, Englund A, Rosenqvist M, Wallentin L. Comorbidity and myocardial dysfunction are the main explanations for the higher 1-year mortality in acute myocardial infarction with left bundle-branch block. Circulation. 2004; 110: 1896–1902.
79. Sweeney MO, Shea JB, Fox V, Adler S, Nelson L, Mullen T, Belk P, Casavant D, Sheldon T. Randomized trial of a new atrial-based minimal ventricular pacing mode in dual chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: MVP. Heart Rhythm. 2004; 1: 160–167.[CrossRef][Medline]
80. Sweeney MO, Ellenbogen KA, Betzold R, Sheldon T, Tang F, Lingle J, Mueller M. Multicenter, prospective, randomized trial of a new atrial-based Managed Ventricular Pacing Mode (MVP) in dual chamber ICDs. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005; 16: 1–7.[CrossRef]
81. Sweeney MO. Minimizing right ventricular pacing: a new paradigm for cardiac pacing in sinus node dysfunction. Am Heart J. 2007; 153: S34–S43.[CrossRef]
82. De Cock CC, Giudici MC, Twisk J. Comparison of the haemodynamic effects of right ventricular outflow-tract pacing with right ventricular apex pacing: a quantitative review. Europace. 2003; 5: 275–278.
83. Gammage M, Marsh A-M, Ng GA, Ng LL, Smeulders A, Prinzen FW. Use of brain natriuretic peptide to assess the left ventricular remodeling response to right ventricualar pacing. Heart Rhythm. 2005; 2 (1S): 3–97.
84. Hirao K, Otano K, Wang X, Beckman KJ, McClelland JH, Widman L, Gonzalez MD, Arruda M, Nakagawa H, Lazzara R, Jackman W. Para Hisian pacing. Circulation. 1996; 94: 1027–1035.
85. Deshmukh P, Casavant D, Romanyshyn M, Anderson K. Permanent, direct His-bundle pacing: a novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His-Purkinje activation. Circulation. 2000; 101: 869–877.
86. Zanon F, Baracca E, Aggio S, Pastore G, Boaretto G, Cardano P, Marotta T, Rigatelli G, Galasso M, Carraro M, Zonzin P. A feasible approach for direct His-bundle pacing using a new steerable catheter to facilitate precise lead placement. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006; 17: 29–33.[Medline]
87. Turner MS, Bleasdale RA, Dragos Vinereanu D, Mumford CE, Paul V, Fraser AG, Frenneaux MP. Electrical and mechanical components of dyssynchrony in heart failure patients with normal QRS duration and left bundle-branch block. Impact of left and biventricular pacing. Circulation. 2004; 109: 2544–2549.
88. Padeletti L, Lieberman R, Schreuder J, Michelucci A, Collella A, Pieragnoli P, Ricciardi G, Eastman W, Valsecchi S, Hettrick DA. Acute effects of His bundle pacing versus left ventricular and right ventricular pacing on left ventricular function. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 100: 1556–1560.[CrossRef][Medline]
89. Puggioni E, Brignole M, Gammage M, Soldati E, Bongiorni MG, Simantirakis EN, Vardas P, Gadler F, Bergfeldt L, Tomasi C, Musso G, Gasparini G, Del Rosso A. Acute comparative effect of right and left ventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43: 234–238.
90. Lieberman R, Padeletti L, Schreuder J, Jackson K, Michelucci A, Colella A, Eastman W, Valsecchi S, Hettrick DA. Ventricular pacing lead location alters systemic hemodynamics and left ventricular function in patients with and without reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48: 1634–1641.
91. Peschar M, de Swart H, Michels KJ, Reneman RS, Prinzen FW. Left ventricular septal and apex pacing for optimal pump function in canine hearts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41: 1218–1226.
92. Vanagt WY, Verbeek XA, Delhaas T, Mertens L, Daenen WJ, Prinzen FW. The left ventricular apex is the optimal site for pediatric pacing: correlation with animal experience. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2004; 27: 837–843.[CrossRef][Medline]
93. Vanagt WY, Prinzen FW, Delhaas T. Reversal of pacing-induced heart failure by left ventricular apical pacing. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357: 2637–2638.
94. Leon A, Greenberg M, Kanuru N, Baker CM, Mera FV, Smith AL, Langberg JJ, DeLurgio DG. Cardiac resynchronization in patients with congestive heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation: effect of upgrading to biventricular pacing after chronic right ventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 1258–1263.
95. Kindermann M, Hennen B, Jung J, Geisel J, Böhm M, Fröhlig G. Biventricular versus conventional right ventricular stimulation for patients with standard pacing indication and left ventricular dysfunction. The Homburg Biventricular Pacing Evaluation (HOBIPACE). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47: 1927–1937.
96. Leclercq C, Cazeau S, Lellouche D, Fossati F, Anselme F, Davy J-M, Sadoul N, Klug D, Mollo L, J-CD. Upgrading from single chamber right ventricular to biventricular pacing in permanently paced patients with worsening heart failure: The RD-CHF Study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007; 30 (s1): S23–S30.[Medline]
97. Leclercq C, Walker S, Linde C, Clementy J, Marshall AJ, Ritter P, Djiane P, Mabo P, Levy T, Gadler F, Bailleul C, Daubert J-C. Comparative effects of permanent biventricular and right-univentricular pacing in heart failure patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2002; 23: 1780–1787.
98. Doshi RN, Daoud EG, Fellows C, Turk K, Duran A, Hamdan MH, Pires LA. Left ventricular-based cardiac stimulation post AV nodal ablation evaluation (The PAVE Study). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005; 16: 1160–1165.[CrossRef][Medline]
99. Kass DA, Chen CH, Curry C, Talbot M, Berger R, Fetics B, Nevo E. Improved left ventricular mechanics from acute VDD pacing in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and ventricular conduction delay. Circulation. 1999; 99: 1567–1573.
100. Auricchio A, Stellbrink C, Block M, Sack S, Vogt J, Bakker P, Klein H, Kramer A, Ding J, Salo R, Tockman B, Pochet T, Spinelli J. Effect of pacing chamber and atrioventricular delay on acute systolic function of paced patients with congestive heart failure. The Pacing Therapies for Congestive Heart Failure Study Group. The Guidant Congestive Heart Failure Research Group. Circulation. 1999; 99: 2993–3001.
101. Nelson GS, Berger RD, Fetics BJ, Talbot M, Spinelli JC, Hare JM, Kass DA. Left ventricular or biventricular pacing improves cardiac function at diminished energy cost in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block. Circulation. 2000; 102: 3053–3059.
102. Breithardt OA, Stellbrink C, Kramer AP, Sinha AM, Franke A, Salo R, Schiffgens B, Huvelle E, Auricchio A, Path-Chf Study Group. Echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular asynchrony predicts an acute hemodynamic benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40: 536–545.
103. Nelson GS, Curry CW, Wyman BT, Kramer A, Declerck J, Talbot M, Douglas MR, Berger RD, McVeigh ER, Kass DA. Predictors of systolic augmentation from left ventricular preexcitation in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and intraventricular conduction delay. Circulation. 2000; 101: 2703–2709.
104. Van Gelder BM, Bracke FA, Meijer A, Pilmeyer A, Pijls NH. Morphology of the RV electrogram during LV pacing is related to the hemodynamic effect in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007; 30: 1381–1387.[CrossRef][Medline]
105. Van Gelder BM, Bracke FA, Van Der Voort PH, Meijer A. Optimal sensed atrio-ventricular interval determined by paced QRS morphology. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007; 30: 476–481.[CrossRef][Medline]
106. Verbeek XAAM, Auricchio A, Yu Y, Ding J, Pochet T, Vernooy K, Kramer A, Spinelli J, Prinzen FW. Tailoring cardiac resynchronization therapy using interventricular asynchrony. Validation of a simple model. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006; 290: H968–H977.
107. van Gelder BM, Bracke FA, Meijer A, Pijls NHJ. The hemodynamic effect of intrinsic conduction during left ventricular pacing as compared to biventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46: 2305–2310.
108. Sawhney NS, Waggoner AD, Garhwal S, Chawla MK, Osborn J, Faddis MN. Randomized prospective trial of atrioventricular delay programming for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2004; 1: 562–567.[CrossRef][Medline]
109. Leon AR, Abraham WT, Brozena S, Daubert JP, Fisher WG, Gurley JC, Liang CS, Wong G, for the InSync IIICSI. Cardiac resynchronization with sequential biventricular pacing for the treatment of moderate-to-severe heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46: 2298–2304.
110. Boriani G, Muller C, Seidl K, Grove R, Vogt J, Danschel A, Schuchert A, Djiane P, Biffi M, Becker T. Randomized comparison of simultaneous biventricular stimulation versus optimized interventricular delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy. The Resynchronization for the Hemodynamic Treatment for Heart Failure Management II implantable cardioverter defibrillator (RHYTHM II ICD) study. Am Heart J. 2006; 151: 1050–1058.[CrossRef][Medline]
111. St John Sutton MG, Plappert T, Abraham WT, Smith AL, DeLurgio DB, Leon AR, Loh E, Kocovic DZ, Fisher WG, Ellestad M, Messenger J, Kruger K, Hilpisch KE, Hill MR, for the MIRACLE Study Group. Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on left ventricular size and function in chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2003; 107: 1985–1990.
112. Sogaard P, Egeblad H, Kim W, Jensen H, Pedersen A, Kristensen B, Mortensen P. Tissue Doppler imaging predicts improved systolic performance and reversed left ventricular remodeling during cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40: 723–730.
113. Lau CP, Yu CM, Chau E, Lau CP, Yu CM, Chau E, Fan K, Tse HF, Lee K, Tang MO, Wan SH, Law TC, Lee PY, Lam YM, Hill MR. Reversal of left ventricular remodeling by synchronous biventricular pacing in heart failure. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2000; 23 (11 Pt 2): 1722–1725.[Medline]
114. Pitzalis MD, Iacoviello M, Romito R, Guida P, De Tommasi E, Luzzi G, Anaclerio M, Forleo C, Rizzon P. Ventricular asynchrony predicts a better outcome in patients with chronic heart failure receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45: 65–69.
115. Saxon LA, De Marco T, Schafer J, Chatterjee K, Kumar UN, Foster E. Effects of long-term biventricular stimulation for resynchronization on echocardiographic measures of remodeling. Circulation. 2002; 105: 1304–1310.
116. Yu CM, Fung JWH, Chan CK, Chan YS, Zhang Q, Lin H, Yip GWK, Kum LCC, Kong SL, Zhang Y, Sanderson JE. Comparison of efficacy of reverse remodeling and clinical improvement for relatively narrow and wide QRS complexes after cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004; 15: 1058–1065.[CrossRef][Medline]
117. Yu CM, Gorscan J, Bleeker GB, Zhang Q, Schalij MJ, Suffoletto M, Fung JW, Schwartzman D, Chan YS, Tanabe M, Bax JJ. Usefulness of tissue doppler velocity and strain dyssynchrony for predicting left ventricular reverse remodeling response after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 100: 1274–1281.[CrossRef][Medline]
118. Steendijk P, Tulner SA, Bax JJ, Oemrawsingh PV, Bleeker GB, van Erven L, Putter H, Verwey HF, van der Wall EE, Schalij MJ. Hemodynamic effects of long-term cardiac resynchronization therapy: analysis by pressure-volume loops. Circulation. 2006; 113: 1295–1304.
119. Bleeker GB, Mollema SA, Holman ER, Van De Veire N, Ypenburg C, Boersma E, van der Wall EE, Schalij MJ, Bax JJ. Left ventricular resynchronization is mandatory for response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: analysis in patients with echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular dyssynchrony at baseline. Circulation. 2007; 116: 1440–1448.
120. Bax JJ, Bleeker GB, Marwick TH, Molhoek SG, Boersma E, Steendijk P, van der Wall EE, Schalij MJ. Left ventricular dyssynchrony predicts response and prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 1834–1840.
121. Yu C-M, Bleeker GB, Fung JW-H, Schalij MJ, Zhang Q, van der Wall EE, Chan Y-S, Kong S-L, Bax JJ. Left ventricular reverse remodeling but not clinical improvement predicts long-term survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation. 2005; 112: 1580–1586.
122. Penicka M, Bartunek J, De Bruyne B, Vanderheyden M, Goethals M, De Zutter M, Brugada P, Geelen P. Improvement of left ventricular function after cardiac resynchronization therapy is predicted by tissue doppler imaging echocardiography. Circulation. 2004; 109: 978–983.
123. Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, Delurgio DB, Leon AR, Loh E, Kocovic D, Packer M, Clavell AL, Hayes DL, Ellestad M, Messenger J, for the MIRACLE Study Group. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Eng J Med. 2002; 346: 1845–1853.
124. Cazeau S, Leclerlq C, Lavergne T, Walker S, Varma C, Linde C, Garrigue S, Kappenberger L, Haywood GA, Santini M, Baillleul C, Mabo P, Lazarus A, Ritter P, Levy T, McKenna W, Daubert JC. Effects of multisite biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 873–880.
125. Auricchio A, Kloss M, Trautmann SI, Rodner S, Klein H. Exercise performance following cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and ventricular conduction delay. Am J Cardiol. 2002; 89: 198–203.[CrossRef][Medline]
126. Cleland JGF, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, Freemantle N, Gras D, Kappenberger L, Tavazzi L, the Cardiac Resynchronization—Heart Failure (CARE-HF) Study Investigators. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 1539–1549.
127. Bradley DJ, Bradley EA, Baughman KL, Berger RD, Calkins H, Goodman SN, Kass DA, Powe NR. Cardiac resynchronization and death from progressive heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2003; 289: 730–740.
128. Cleland JGF, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, Freemantle N, Gras D, Kappenberger L, Tavazzi L, on behalf of The CARE-HF Study Investigators. Longer-term effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on mortality in heart failure [the CArdiac REsynchronization-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) trial extension phase. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27: 1928–1932.
129. Reuter S, Garrigue S, Barold SS, Jais P, Hocini M, Haissaguerre M, Clementy J. Comparison of characteristics in responders versus nonresponders with biventricular pacing for drug-resistant congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2002; 89: 346–350.[CrossRef][Medline]
130. Bax JJ, Marwick TH, Molhoek SG, Bleeker GB, van Erven L, Boersma E, Steendijk P, van der Wall EE, Schalij MJ. Left ventricular dyssynchrony predicts benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with end-stage heart failure before pacemaker implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2003; 92: 1238–1240.[CrossRef][Medline]
131. Ansalone A, Giannantoni P, Ricci R, Trambaiolo P, Laurenti A, Fedele F, Santini M. Doppler myocardial imaging in patients with heart failure receiving biventricular pacing treatment. Am Heart J. 2001; 142: 881–896.[CrossRef][Medline]
132. Ansalone G, Giannantoni P, Ricci R, Trambaiolo P, Fedele F, Santini M. Doppler myocardial imaging to evaluate the effectiveness of pacing sites in patients receiving biventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 489–499.
133. Auricchio A, Klein H, Tockman B, Sack S, Stellbrink C, Neuzner J, Kramer A, Ding J, Pochet T, Maarse A, Spinelli J. Transvenous biventricular pacing for heart failure: can the obstacles be overcome? Am J Cardiol. 1999; 83: 136D–142D.[CrossRef][Medline]
134. Butter C, Auricchio A, Stellbrink C, Fleck E, Ding J, Yu Y, Huvelle E, Spinelli J, for the Pacing Therapy for Chronic Heart Failure II Study Group. Effect of resynchronization therapy stimulation site on the systolic function of heart failure patients. Circulation. 2001; 104: 3026–3029.
135. Gold MR, Auriccchio A, Hummel JD, Giudici MC, Diang J, Tockman V, Spinelli J. Comparison of stimulation sites within left ventricular veins on the acute hemodynamic effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2005; 2: 376–381.[CrossRef][Medline]
136. Rossillo A, Verma A, Saad EB, Corrado A, Gasparini G, Marrouche NF, Golshayan AR, McCurdy R, Bhargava M, Khaykin Y, Burkhardt JD, Martin DO, Wilkoff BL, Saliba WI, Schweikert RA, Raviele A, Natale A. Impact of coronary sinus lead position on biventricular pacing: mortality and echocardiographic evaluation during long term followup. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004; 15: 1120–1125.[CrossRef][Medline]
137. Koos R, Sinha A, Markus L, Breithardt OA, Mischke K, Zarse M, Schmid M, Autschbach R, Hanrath P, Stellbrink C. Comparison of left ventricular lead palcement via the coronary venous approach versus lateral thoracotomy in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2004; 94: 59–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
138. Higgins SL, Hummel JD, Niazi IK, Giudici MC, Worley SJ, Saxon LA, Boehmer JP, Higginbotham MB, De Marco T, Foster E, Yong PG. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for the treatment of heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42: 1454–1459.
139. Baxx JJ, Yu C-M, Lin H, Fung W-H, Zhang Q, Kong S-L, Sanderson JE. Comparison of acute changes in left ventricular volume, systolic and diastolic functions, and intraventricular synchronicity after biventricular pacing and right ventricular pacing for congestive heart failure. Am Heart J. 2003; 145: G1–G7.
140. Bax JJ, Molhoek SG, van Erven L, Voogd PJ, Somer S, Boersma E, Steendijk P, Schalij MJ, Van der Wall EE. Usefulness of myocardial tissue Doppler echocardiography to evaluate left ventricular dyssynchrony before and after biventricular pacing in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol. 2003; 91: 94–97.[CrossRef][Medline]
141. Yu CM, Chau E, Sanderson EJ, Fan K, Tang MO, Fung WH, Lin H, Kong SL, Lam YM, Hill MR, Lau CP. Tissue doppler echocardiographic evidence of reverse remodeling and improved synchronicity by simultaneous delaying regional contraction after biventricular pacing therapy in heart failure. Circulation. 2002; 105: 438–445.
142. Gorcsan J III, Tanabe M, Bleeker GB, Suffoletto MS, Thomas NC, Saba S, Tops LF, Schalij MJ, Bax JJ. Combined longitudinal and radial dyssynchrony predicts ventricular response after resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50: 1476–1483.
143. Auricchio A, Stellbrink C, Butter C, Sack S, Vogt J, Misier AR, Bocker D, Block M, Kirkels JH, Pacing Therapies in Congestive Heart Failure IISG, Kramer A, Huvelle E, Guidant Heart Failure Research G. Clinical efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy using left ventricular pacing in heart failure patients stratified by severity of ventricular conduction delay. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42: 2109–2116.
144. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, Krueger S, Kass DA, De Marco T, Carson P, DiCarlo L, DeMets D, White BG, DeVries DW, Feldman AM, the Comparison of Medical Therapy P, Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Investigators. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 2140–2150.
145. Yu Y, Kramer A, Spinelli J, Ding J, Hoersch W, Auricchio A. Biventricular mechanical asynchrony predicts hemodynamic effect of uni- and biventricular pacing. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2003; 285: H2788–H2796.
146. Byrne MJ, Helm RH, Daya S, Osman NF, Halperin HR, Berger RD, Kass DA, Lardo AC. Diminished left ventricular dyssynchrony and impact of resynchronization in failing hearts with right versus left bundle branch block. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50: 1484–1490.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||