These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Haemodynamic effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy using single-vein, three-pole, multipoint left ventricular pacing in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and a left ventricular free wall scar: the MAESTRO study.
    Author: Umar F, Taylor RJ, Stegemann B, Marshall H, Flannigan S, Lencioni M, De Bono J, Griffith M, Leyva F.
    Journal: Europace; 2016 Aug; 18(8):1227-34. PubMed ID: 26718535.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: The clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is variable. Multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing could achieve more effective haemodynamic response than single-point LV pacing. Deployment of an LV lead over myocardial scar is associated with a poor haemodynamic response to and clinical outcome of CRT. We sought to determine whether the acute haemodynamic response to CRT using three-pole LV multipoint pacing (CRT3P-MPP) is superior to that to conventional CRT using single-site LV pacing (CRTSP) in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and an LV free wall scar. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixteen patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy [aged 72.6 ± 7.7 years (mean ± SD), 81.3% male, QRS: 146.0 ± 14.2 ms, LBBB in 14 (87.5%)] in whom the LV lead was intentionally deployed straddling an LV free wall scar (assessed using cardiac magnetic resonance), underwent assessment of LV + dP/dtmax during CRT3P-MPP and CRTSP. Interindividually, the ΔLV + dP/dtmax in relation to AAI pacing with CRT3P-MPP (6.2 ± 13.3%) was higher than with basal and mid CRTSP (both P < 0.001), but similar to apical CRTSP. Intraindividually, significant differences in the ΔLV + dP/dtmax to optimal and worst pacing configurations were observed in 10 (62.5%) patients. Of the 8 patients who responded to at least one configuration, CRT3P-MPP was optimal in 5 (62.5%) and apical CRTSP was optimal in 3 (37.5%) (P = 0.0047). CONCLUSIONS: In terms of acute haemodynamic response, CRT3P-MPP was comparable an apical CRTSP and superior to basal and distal CRTSP. In the absence of within-device haemodynamic optimization, CRT3P-MPP may offer a haemodynamic advantage over a fixed CRTSP configuration.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]