Article Text

PDF

007 Should current modalities of VV optimisation be trusted? An assessment of the internal validity of echocardiographic, electrocardiographic and haemodynamic modalities of optimisation
  1. Andreas Kyriacou,
  2. M Li Kam Wa,
  3. P Pabari,
  4. P Kanagaratnam,
  5. N S Peters,
  6. J Mayet,
  7. D P Francis,
  8. Z I Whinnett
  1. St Marys Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

Abstract

Background In atrial fibrillation (AF), VV optimisation of biventricular pacemakers can be examined in isolation. We used this approach to evaluate the internal validity of three VV optimisation methods.

Methods 20 patients (16 men, age 75±7) in AF were optimised, at two paced heart rates, by LVOT VTI (flow), non-invasive arterial pressure, and ECG (minimising QRS duration). Each optimisation method was evaluated by: singularity (unique peak of function), reproducibility of optimum, and biological plausibility of the distribution of optima.

Results The reproducibility (SD of the difference, SDD) of the optimal VV delay is 10 ms for pressure, vs 8 ms (p=NS) for QRS and 34 ms (p<0.01) for flow. Singularity of optimum is 85% for pressure, 63% for ECG and 45% for flow (χ2=10.9, p<0.005). The distribution of pressure optima is biologically plausible, with 80% LV pre-excited (p=0.007). The distributions of ECG (55% LV pre-excitation) and flow (45% LV pre-excitation) optima are no better than random (p=NS). The pressure-derived optimal VV delay is unaffected by the paced rate: SDD between slow and fast heart rate is 9 ms, no different from the reproducibility SDD at both heart rates, (p=NS).

Conclusions Using non-invasive arterial pressure, VV delay optimisation is achievable with good precision, satisfying all 3 criteria of internal validity, and the optimum is unaffected by heart rate. Neither QRS minimisation nor LVOT VTI satisfy all validity criteria and are therefore weaker candidate modalities for VV optimisation.

Abstract 007 Figure 1

The reproducibility (SD of the difference, SDD in ms) of LVOT VTI (A) is equally poor at the slow (31 ms) and fast (35 ms) heart rates. SBP reproducibility (B) was better than LVOT VTI at slow (10 ms, p<0.01) and fast heart rates (9 ms, p<0.01). The reproducibility of the QRS width (C) was also better at slow (8 ms, p<0.01) and fast (6 ms, p<0.01) rates.

  • Biventricular pacemaker
  • optimisation
  • internal validity

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.