trying...
25862307 2016 08 04 2018 11 13 1532-2092 17 10 2015 Oct Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology Europace Automated detection of effective left-ventricular pacing: going beyond percentage pacing counters. 1555 1562 1555-62 10.1093/europace/euv062 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices report percentage pacing as a diagnostic but cannot determine the effectiveness of each paced beat in capturing left-ventricular (LV) myocardium. Reasons for ineffective LV pacing include improper timing (i.e. pseudofusion) or inadequate pacing output. Device-based determination of effective LV pacing may facilitate optimization of CRT response. Effective capture at the LV cathode results in a negative deflection (QS or QS-r morphology) on a unipolar electrogram (EGM). Morphological features of LV cathode-RV coil EGMs were analysed to develop a device-based automatic algorithm, which classified each paced beat as effective or ineffective LV pacing. The algorithm was validated using acute data from 28 CRT-defibrillator patients. Effective LV pacing and pseudofusion was simulated by pacing at various AV delays. Loss of LV capture was simulated by RV-only pacing. The algorithm always classified LV or biventricular (BV) pacing with AV delays ≤60% of patient's intrinsic AV delay as effective pacing. As AV delays increased, the percentage of beats classified as effective LV pacing decreased. Algorithm results were compared against a classification truth based on correlation coefficients between paced QRS complexes and intrinsic rhythm QRS templates from three surface ECG leads. An average correlation >0.9 defined a classification truth of ineffective pacing. Compared against the classification truth, the algorithm correctly classified 98.2% (3240/3300) effective LV pacing beats, 75.8% (561/740) of pseudofusion beats, and 100% (540/540) of beats with loss of LV capture. A device-based algorithm for beat-by-beat monitoring of effective LV pacing is feasible. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. Ghosh Subham S Medtronic Inc., 8200 Coral Sea St, Mounds View, MN 55112, USA. Stadler Robert W RW Medtronic Inc., 8200 Coral Sea St, Mounds View, MN 55112, USA. Mittal Suneet S Arrhythmia Institute at Valley Hospital, 223 N. Van Dien Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ 07450, USA mittsu@valleyhealth.com. eng Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 2015 04 09 England Europace 100883649 1099-5129 IM Aged Algorithms Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices adverse effects Female Heart Failure therapy Heart Ventricles physiopathology Humans Male Middle Aged Cardiac resynchronization therapy Effective LV pacing Electrograms Percent pacing 2015 1 2 2015 2 23 2015 4 12 6 0 2015 4 12 6 0 2016 8 5 6 0 2015 4 10 ppublish 25862307 PMC4617370 10.1093/europace/euv062 euv062 Brignole M, Aurrichio A, Baron-Esquivias G, Bordachar P, Boriani G, Breithardt OA, et al. 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace 2013;15:1070–118. 23801827 Hayes DL, Boehmer JP, Day JD, Gilliam FR, III, Heidenreich PA, Seth M, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy and the relationship percent biventricular pacing to symptoms and survival. Heart Rhythm 2011;8:1469–75. 21699828 Koplan BA, Kaplan AJ, Weiner S, Jones PW, Seth M, Christman SA. Heart failure decompensation and all-cause mortality in relation to percent biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: is a goal of 100% biventricular pacing necessary? J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:355–60. 19161886 Gasparini M, Galimberti P, Ceriotti C. The importance of increased percentage of biventricular pacing to improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. Curr Opin Cardiol 2013;28:50–4. 23196776 Ousdigian KT, Borek P, Koehler JL, Heywood T, Ziegler PD, Wilkoff BL. The epidemic of inadequate biventricular pacing in patients with persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation and its association with mortality. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2014;7:370–6. 24838004 Martin DO, Lemke B, Birnie D, Krum H, Lee KF, Aonuma K, et al. Investigation of a novel algorithm for synchronized left-ventricular pacing and ambulatory optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results of the Adaptive CRT trial. Heart Rhythm 2012;9:1807–14. 22796472 Ganiere V, Domenichini G, Niculescu V, Cassagneau R, Defaye P, Burri H. A new electrocardiogram algorithm for diagnosing loss of ventricular capture during cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace 2013;15:376–81. 23054217 Jastrzebski M, Kukula P, Kamil CF, Czarnecka D. Universal algorithm for diagnosis of biventricular capture in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2014;37:986–93. 24646024 Kamath GS, Cotiga D, Koneru JN, Arshad A, Pierce W, Aziz EF, et al. The utility of 12-lead Holter monitoring in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation for the identification of nonresponders after cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:1050–5. 19298918 Man KC, Daoud EG, Knight BP, Bahu M, Weiss R, Zivin A, et al. Accuracy of the unipolar electrograms for identification of the site of origin of ventricular activation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1997;8:974–9. 9300293 Diotallevi P, Ravazzi PA, Gostoli E, Marchi GD, Militello C, Kraetschmer H. An algorithm for verifying biventricular capture based on evoked-response morphology. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2005;28:S15–8. 15683484 Crossley GH, Mead H, Kleckner K, Sheldon T, Davenport L, Harsch MR, et al. Automated left ventricular capture management. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007;10:1190–200. 17897121 van Gelder BM, Bracke FA, Meijer A, Pijils NH. The hemodynamic effect of intrinsic conduction during left ventricular pacing as compared to biventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:2305–10. 16360063 Caldwell JC, Contractor H, Petkar S, Ali R, Clarke B, Garratt CJ, et al. Atrial fibrillation is under-recognized in chronic heart failure: insights from a heart failure cohort treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace 2009;11:1295–300. 19648586 Puglisi A, Gasparini M, Lunati M, Sassara M, Padeletti L, Landolina M, et al. Persistent atrial fibrillation worsens heart rate variability, activity and heart rate, as shown by a continuous monitoring by implantable biventricular pacemakers in heart failure patients. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2008;19:693–701. 18328039 Hoppe UC, Casares JM, Eiskajer H, Hagemann A, Cleland JGF, Freemantle N, et al. Effect of cardiac resynchronization on the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with severe heart failure. Circulation 2006;114:18–25. 16801461 Milpied P, Dubois R, Roussel P, Henry C, Dreyfus G. Morphological stability of bipolar and unipolar endocardial electrograms. Comput Cardiol 2010;37:733–6. trying2... trying...
30340 5 0 1 MCID_676f0863eb96a9a5730ddff2
39726725
39726627
39723275
39721201
39720395
effective "effect"[All Fields] OR "effecting"[All Fields] OR "effective"[All Fields] OR "effectively"[All Fields] OR "effectiveness"[All Fields] OR "effectivenesses"[All Fields] OR "effectives"[All Fields] OR "effectivities"[All Fields] OR "effectivity"[All Fields] OR "effects"[All Fields] pacing "paced"[All Fields] OR "paces"[All Fields] OR "pacing"[All Fields] OR "pacings"[All Fields] ("effect"[All Fields] OR "effecting"[All Fields] OR "effective"[All Fields] OR "effectively"[All Fields] OR "effectiveness"[All Fields] OR "effectivenesses"[All Fields] OR "effectives"[All Fields] OR "effectivities"[All Fields] OR "effectivity"[All Fields] OR "effects"[All Fields]) AND ("paced"[All Fields] OR "paces"[All Fields] OR "pacing"[All Fields] OR "pacings"[All Fields])
trying2... trying... trying2...
Automated detection of effective left-ventricular pacing: going beyond percentage pacing counters. | LitMetric
Aims : Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices report percentage pacing as a diagnostic but cannot determine the effectiveness of each paced beat in capturing left-ventricular (LV) myocardium. Reasons for ineffective LV pacing include improper timing (i.e. pseudofusion) or inadequate pacing output. Device-based determination of effective LV pacing may facilitate optimization of CRT response.Methods And Results : Effective capture at the LV cathode results in a negative deflection (QS or QS-r morphology) on a unipolar electrogram (EGM). Morphological features of LV cathode-RV coil EGMs were analysed to develop a device-based automatic algorithm, which classified each paced beat as effective or ineffective LV pacing. The algorithm was validated using acute data from 28 CRT-defibrillator patients. Effective LV pacing and pseudofusion was simulated by pacing at various AV delays. Loss of LV capture was simulated by RV-only pacing. The algorithm always classified LV or biventricular (BV) pacing with AV delays ≤60% of patient's intrinsic AV delay as effective pacing. As AV delays increased, the percentage of beats classified as effective LV pacing decreased. Algorithm results were compared against a classification truth based on correlation coefficients between paced QRS complexes and intrinsic rhythm QRS templates from three surface ECG leads. An average correlation >0.9 defined a classification truth of ineffective pacing. Compared against the classification truth, the algorithm correctly classified 98.2% (3240/3300) effective LV pacing beats, 75.8% (561/740) of pseudofusion beats, and 100% (540/540) of beats with loss of LV capture.Conclusion : A device-based algorithm for beat-by-beat monitoring of effective LV pacing is feasible.
Similar Publications
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!