Right Ventricular Septal Pacing: A Comparative Study of Outflow Tract and Mid Ventricular Sites

Background: Prolonged right ventricle (RV) apical pacing is associated with left ventricle (LV) dysfunction due to dysynchronous ventricular activation and contraction. Alternative RV pacing sites with a narrower QRS compared to RV pacing might reflect a more physiological and synchronous LV activation. The purpose of this study was to compare the QRS morphology, duration, and suitability of RV outflow tract (RVOT) septal and mid‐RV septal pacing. Methods: Seventeen consecutive patients with indication for dual‐chamber pacing were enrolled in the study. Two standard 58‐cm active fixation leads were passed to the RV and positioned in the RVOT septum and mid‐RV septum using a commercially available septal stylet (model 4140, St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA). QRS duration, morphology, and pacing parameters were compared at the two sites. The RV lead with less‐satisfactory electrical parameters was withdrawn and deployed in the right atrium. Results: Successful positioning of the pacing leads at the RVOT septum and mid‐RV septum was achieved in 15 patients (88.2%). There were no significant differences in the mean stimulation threshold, R‐wave sensing, and lead impedance between the two sites. The QRS duration in the RVOT septum was 151 ± 14 ms and in the mid‐RV septum 145 ± 13 ms (P = 0.150). Conclusions: This prospective observational study shows that septal pacing can be reliably achieved both in the RVOT and mid‐RV with active fixation leads using a specifically shaped stylet. There are no preferences in regard to acute lead performance or paced QRS duration with either position. (PACE 2010; 33:1169–1173)     

Electrocardiographic Diagnosis of Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Nonapical Right Ventricular Leads

Background: Assessment of left ventricular (LV) capture is of paramount importance in patients with biventricular (BiV) pacing. Our goal was to identify electrocardiographic features that differentiate between BiV and right ventricular (RV)‐only pacing in patients with nonapical RV leads. Methods: The study enrolled 300 consecutive patients with BiV devices and nonapical RV leads, and obtained from them 558 electrocardiograms with either BiV pacing (n = 300) or RV‐only pacing (n = 258). RV pacing served as a surrogate for loss of LV capture. Electrocardiograms from the first 150 patients were used to identify BiV‐specific features, and to construct an algorithm to differentiate between BiV and RV‐only pacing. Electrocardiograms from the second 150 patients were used to validate the algorithm. Results: The following electrocardiographic features typical of BiV pacing were identified: QS in lead V6 (specificity = 98.7%, sensitivity = 54.7%), dominant R in lead V1 (specificity = 100%, sensitivity = 23.3%), q in lead V6 (specificity = 96%, sensitivity = 22.7%), and a QRS < 160 ms (specificity = 100%, sensitivity = 66.0%). The algorithm based on those features was found to have an overall diagnostic accuracy of 95.0%, a specificity of 96.0%, and a sensitivity of 93.5%. Conclusions: The study identified QRS features that were very specific for BiV pacing in patients with nonapical RV leads. Sequential arrangement of those features resulted in an algorithm that was very accurate for differentiating between BiV pacing and loss of LV capture. (PACE 2012; 35:1199–1208)     

Ventricular activation sequence during left ventricular pacing promotes QRS complex oversensing in the atrial channel

Background: Left ventricular (LV)‐only pacing has a significant effect on delay in depolarization of parts of the ventricles that are likely oversensed in the right atrial channel. The study aimed to assess the impact of ventricular activation sequence on QRS oversensing and far‐field endless‐loop pacemaker tachycardia (ELT) in patients who received cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. Methods: The study examined 102 patients with CRT devices. Oversensing artifacts in the atrial channel were inspected on intracardiac electrograms, and their timing with respect to the beginning of QRS was determined during DDD‐right ventricular (RV), DDD‐LV, DDD‐biventricular (BiV), and AAI pacing modes. The occurrence of ELT during DDD‐LV pacing with a postventricular atrial refractory period (PVARP) of 250 ms was also assessed. Results: The timing of oversensing artifacts (in relation to the beginning of surface QRS) was dependent on ventricular activation sequence, occurring promptly following intrinsic activation via the right bundle branch (47.1 ± 26.4 ms), later during RV pacing (108.7 ± 22.5 ms) or BiV pacing (109.4 ± 23.1 ms), and significantly later, corresponding to the final part of the QRS, during LV pacing (209.6 ± 40.0 ms, range: 140–340 ms, P < 0.001). Oversensing was significantly more frequent during LV than during RV pacing (35.3% vs 22.5%, P < 0.001). Far‐field ELT was observed in six patients. Conclusions: Oversensing artifacts in the atrial channel are likely caused by depolarization of the basal part of the right ventricle. The novel mechanism of QRS oversensing outside PVARP, caused by a reversed ventricular activation sequence during LV‐only pacing, may be important in some CRT patients. (PACE 2011; 34:1682–1686)     

Greater three-dimensional ventricular lead tip separation is associated with improved outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background: Effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is more likely with widely separated left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) pacing leads tips. We hypothesized that lead separation is an important factor in determining the clinical response to CRT. Methods: A retrospective study of 86 consecutive patients age 71 ± 10 years, male (74%), coronary disease (71%), atrial fibrillation (23%), LV ejection fraction (22 ± 9%), QRS duration (160 ± 27 ms), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III (81%), NYHA class IV (19%) undergoing CRT from January 2006 to September 2008. The median follow‐up was 12 months and clinical response to CRT was defined as reduction of NYHA class by one or more. The three‐dimensional separation between RV and LV pacing lead tips was calculated using measurements obtained from orthogonal posteroanterior and lateral chest radiographs performed the day after implantation. Results: Fifty‐nine patients (69%) responded to CRT. There was a statistically significant association between increased three‐dimensional lead separation and clinical response to CRT (P= 0.005). Stronger association was obtained when lead separation was corrected for cardiac size (P= 0.001). A significantly higher response rate of 88% was achieved in patients with QRS duration of 160 ms or more, and lead separation of 100 mm or more compared with 60% when lead separation was less than 100 mm and QRS duration remained the same (P = 0.027). Conclusions: Greater three‐dimensional separation of LV‐to‐RV leads is associated with improved response to CRT. A prospective multicenter trial is needed to assess lead separation as a predictor for response. (PACE 2010; 33:1490–1496)     

Site‐Specific Differences in Latency Intervals during Biventricular Pacing: Impact on Paced QRS Morphology and Echo‐Optimized V‐V Interval

Objective: To investigate differences in latency intervals during right ventricular (RV) pacing and left ventricular (LV) pacing from the (postero‐)lateral cardiac vein in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients and their relationship to echo‐optimized interventricular (V‐V) intervals and paced QRS morphology. Methods: We recorded digital 12‐lead electrocardiograms in 40 CRT patients during RV, LV, and biventricular pacing at three output settings. Stimulus‐to‐earliest QRS deflection (latency) intervals were measured in all leads. Echocardiographic atrioventricular (AV) and V‐V optimization was performed using aortic velocity time integrals. Results: Latency intervals were longer during LV (34 ± 17, 29 ± 15, 28 ± 15 ms) versus RV apical pacing (17 ± 8, 15 ± 8, 13 ± 7 ms) for threshold, threshold ×3, and maximal output, respectively (P < 0.001), and shortened with increased stimulus strength (P < 0.05). The echo‐optimized V‐V interval was 58 ± 31 ms in five of 40 (12%) patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms compared to 29 ± 20 ms in 35 patients with LV latency < 40 ms (P < 0.01). During simultaneous biventricular pacing, four of five (80%) patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms exhibited a left bundle branch block (LBBB) pattern in lead V₁ compared to three of 35 (9%) patients with LV latency < 40 ms (P < 0.01). After optimization, all five patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms registered a dominant R wave in lead V₁. Conclusions: LV pacing from the lateral cardiac vein is associated with longer latency intervals than endocardial RV pacing. LV latency causes delayed LV activation and requires V‐V interval adjustment to improve hemodynamic response to CRT. Patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms most often display an LBBB pattern in lead V₁ during simultaneous biventricular pacing, but a right bundle branch block after V‐V interval optimization. (PACE 2010; 1382–1391)     

The impact of the right ventricular lead position on response to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Introduction: Left ventricular (LV) lead placement to the latest contracting area (concordant LV lead) is associated with better response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) compared to a discordant LV lead. However, the effect of the right ventricular (RV) lead site on CRT response is unclear. We investigated the relationship of the RV and LV lead positions on CRT response. Methods: In 131 CRT patients, the LV lead was positioned preferentially in a lateral or posterolateral vein and the RV lead to either the RV septum (RVS, n = 55) or RV apex (RVA, n = 76). The latest site of contraction was determined with two‐dimensional speckle tracking radial strain imaging and patients had a concordant LV lead position if pacing the latest segment, and discordant if not. Response was defined as ≥15% reduction in LV end systolic volume (LVESV) at 6‐month follow‐up. Results: There were no significant differences in mean reduction of LVESV at follow‐up (RVS vs RVA: ?23.3 ± 16% vs 22.1 ± 18%, P = 0.70) or rate of responders (58.2% vs 57.9%, P = 0.97) between the two groups. In patients with a concordant LV lead (n = 71), the response rate was significantly higher than those with a discordant lead (76.1% vs 36.7%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in outcomes in patients with a concordant or discordant LV lead according to the RV lead location. Conclusion: The extent of LV reverse remodeling following CRT is not related to the RV lead position, but is significantly higher in patients with a concordant LV lead. (PACE 2011; 34:467–474)     

The effect of anodal stimulation on V-V timing at varying V-V intervals

We studied the effect of anodal capture at the ring electrode of the right ventricular (RV) lead on interventricular (V-V) timing during biventricular (BiV) pacing, in which left ventricular (LV) pacing was preceding RV pacing. The V-V interval was programmed from 80 to 4 ms (LV first) in the LV unipolar (LV tip--generator can) followed by the LV tip-RV ring pacing configuration. In the LV unipolar configuration, V-V programming leads to a continuous change in morphology of the QRS complex according to a change in collision of both activation fronts. When using the LV tip-RV ring configuration with anodal capture at the RV ring electrode no change in QRS morphology was recorded varying the V-V interval from 80 to 60 and 40 ms. However, at V-V intervals between 20 and 4 ms a change in morphology of the QRS complex was recorded, which was due to additional cathodal stimulation of the RV tip electrode during RV stimulation.     

Activation sequence modification during cardiac resynchronization by manipulation of left ventricular epicardial pacing stimulus strength

BACKGROUND: Success of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) depends on altering electrical ventricular activation (VA) to achieve mechanical benefit. That increases in stimulus strength (SS) can affect VA has been demonstrated previously in cardiomyopathy patients undergoing ablation. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether increasing SS can alter VA during CRT. METHODS: In 71 patients with CRT devices, left ventricle (LV) pacing was performed at escalating SS. Timing from pacing stimulus to right ventricular (RV) electrogram, ECG morphology, and maximal QRS duration on 12 lead ECG were recorded. RESULTS: Demographics: Baseline QRS duration 153 +/- 25 ms, ischemic cardiomyopathy 48%, ejection fraction 24%+/- 7%. With increased SS, conduction time from LV to right ventricle (RV) decreased from 125 +/- 56 ms to 111 +/- 59 ms (P = 0.006). QRS duration decreased from 212 +/- 46 ms to 194 +/- 42 ms (P = 0.0002). A marked change in QRS morphology occurred in 11/71 patients (15%). The RV ring was the anode in 6, while the RV coil was the anode in 5. Sites with change in QRS morphology showed decrease in conduction time from LV to RV from 110 +/- 60 ms to 64 +/- 68 ms (P = 0.04). Twelve patients (16%) had diaphragmatic stimulation with increased SS. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing LV SS reduces QRS duration and conduction time from LV to RV. Recognition of significant QRS morphology change is likely clinically important during LV threshold programming to avoid unintended VA change.     

Anodal capture in cardiac resynchronization therapy implications for device programming

INTRODUCTION: Right ventricular (RV) anodal capture (AC) has been reported in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), when left ventricular (LV) pacing uses pseudobipolar (LV tip to RV proximal electrode) configuration. The aim of the study was to analyze the prevalence of AC and its implications for device programming. METHODS AND RESULTS: When AC occurred, the resulting QRS morphology was evaluated with the following pacing modes: (1) LV tip pacing plus RV AC, (2) Biventricular (BiV) pacing (i.e., both LV and RV tip pacing), and (3) BiV pacing plus RV AC. Several interventricular pacing (VV) intervals from 50 ms of LV preactivation to 30 ms of RV preactivation were tested in modes 2 and 3. From 38 consecutive patients, AC was achieved in 14 (in 74% of the pacemakers and in none of the defibrillators). LV tip pacing plus RV AC obtained narrower QRS than BiV pacing at all VV intervals in seven of the patients with AC (50%). When BiV pacing is combined with RV AC, it produced a ventricular depolarization through two wave fronts (one from the LV tip and the second from either the ring or the tip of the RV lead depending on the VV interval programmed). CONCLUSIONS: AC obtained the narrowest QRS of all tested pacing modes in a significant proportion of patients undergoing CRT. Though the stimulus was delivered from three sites (BiV pacing plus RV AC mode), only two wave fronts of ventricular activation were seen by ECG.     

Acute hemodynamic effects of right and left ventricular lead positions during the implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators

Background: To evaluate the acute hemodynamic effects of different right (RV) and left ventricular (LV) pacing sites in patients undergoing the implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT‐D). Methods: Stroke volume index (SVI), assessed via pulse contour analysis, and dp/dt max, obtained in the abdominal aorta, were analyzed in 21 patients with New York Heart Association class III heart failure and left bundle branch block (mean ejection fraction of 24 ± 6%), scheduled for CRT‐D implantation under general anesthesia. We compared the hemodynamic effects of RV apical (A), RV septal (B), and biventricular pacing using the worst (lowest SVI; C) and best (highest SVI; D) coronary sinus lead positions. Results: Mean arterial pressure, SVI, and dp/dt max did not differ significantly between RV apical and septal pacing. Dp/dt max and SVI increased significantly during biventricular pacing (dp/dt max: B, 588 ± 160 mmHg/s; C, 651 ± 218 mmHg/s, P = 0.03 vs B; D, 690 ± 220 mmHg/s, P = 0.02 vs C; SVI: B, 33.6 ± 5.5 mL/m², C, 34.8 ± 6.1 mL/m², P = 0.08 vs B, D 36.0 ± 6.0 mL/m², P < 0.001 vs C). The best hemodynamic response was associated with lateral or inferior lead positions in 15 patients. Other LV lead positions were most effective in six patients. Conclusions: The optimal LV lead position varies significantly among patients and should be individually determined during CRT‐D implantation. The impact of the RV stimulation site in patients with intraventricular conduction delay, undergoing CRT‐D implantation, has to be investigated in further studies. (PACE 2011; 34:1537–1543)     

The Road to Right Ventricular Septal Pacing: Techniques and Tools

Prolonged right ventricular (RV) apical pacing is associated with progressive left ventricular dysfunction due to dysynchronous ventricular activation and contraction. RV septal pacing allows a narrower QRS compared to RV apical pacing, which might reflect a more physiological and synchronous ventricular activation. Previous clinical studies, which did not consistently achieve RV septal pacing, were not confirmatory and need to be repeated. This review summarizes the anatomy of the RV septum, the radiographic appearances of pacing leads in the RV, the electrocardiograph correlates of RV septal lead positioning, and the techniques and tools required for implantation of an active‐fixation lead onto the RV septum. Using the described techniques and tools, conventional active‐fixation leads can now be reliably secured to either the RV outflow tract septum or mid‐RV septum with very low complication rates and good long‐term performance. Even though physiologic and hemodynamic studies on true RV septal pacing have not been completed, the detrimental effects of long‐term RV apical pacing are significant enough to suggest that it is now time to leave the RV apex and secure all RV leads onto the septum. (PACE 2010; 888–898)     

Biophysical modeling to simulate the response to multisite left ventricular stimulation using a quadripolar pacing lead

Background: Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is reduced in patients with posterolateral scar. Multipolar pacing leads offer the ability to select desirable pacing sites and/or stimulate from multiple pacing sites concurrently using a single lead position. Despite this potential, the clinical evaluation and identification of metrics for optimization of multisite CRT (MCRT) has not been performed. Methods: The efficacy of MCRT via a quadripolar lead with two left ventricular (LV) pacing sites in conjunction with right ventricular pacing was compared with single‐site LV pacing using a coupled electromechanical biophysical model of the human heart with no, mild, or severe scar in the LV posterolateral wall. Result: The maximum dP/dt_max improvement from baseline was 21%, 23%, and 21% for standard CRT versus 22%, 24%, and 25% for MCRT for no, mild, and severe scar, respectively. In the presence of severe scar, there was an incremental benefit of multisite versus standard CRT (25% vs 21%, 19% relative improvement in response). Minimizing total activation time (analogous to QRS duration) or minimizing the activation time of short‐axis slices of the heart did not correlate with CRT response. The peak electrical activation wave area in the LV corresponded with CRT response with an R² value between 0.42 and 0.75. Conclusion: Biophysical modeling predicts that in the presence of posterolateral scar MCRT offers an improved response over conventional CRT. Maximizing the activation wave area in the LV had the most consistent correlation with CRT response, independent of pacing protocol, scar size, or lead location. (PACE 2012; 35:204–214)     

Intracardiac Echocardiography-Guided Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Technique and Clinical Application

Background: We undertook a pilot investigation to evaluate the feasibility of a novel technique using intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) for intraoperative assessment of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
Methods: We evaluated ICE intraoperative imaging of left ventricular (LV) function and aortic valvular flow as well as safety of implementation. ICE was used to guide CRT system lead placement, assess impact of pacing modes, and optimization of device programming.
Results: Twenty-three patients underwent ICE imaging. ICE showed global hypokinesis in six patients, regional wall motion abnormality only in 10 patients, and both in seven patients. Optimized CRT modes included mean atrioventricular (AV) interval of 170 ms and interventricular timing using simultaneous right ventricular (RV)-LV pacing (five patients), LV pacing only (one patient), and sequential LV to RV stimulation (15 patients) or RV to LV stimulation (two patients). ICE-guided CRT acutely improved mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from 24 ± 9% to 41 ± 1% (P < 0.00001). During follow-up of 3–24 (mean 11) months, New York Heart Association class improved in all patients from a mean of 3.2 ± 0.4 at implant to 1.6 ± 0.7 (P < 0.0001), with improvement of LVEF from 19 ± 7% to 34 ± 12% (P = 0.0001). Actuarial survival was 83% at 12 months.
Conclusions: (1) ICE imaging is reliable and safe for continuous intraoperative imaging of LV wall motion, and assesses baseline status and impact of CRT interventions. (2) Intraoperative ICE-guided CRT optimization resulted in an increase in LVEF acutely and consistent improvement in heart failure. (3) Sequential biventricular pacing and longer AV interval programming were more often used in ICE-guided CRT.     

Alternate site right ventricular pacing: defining template scoring

Background: Prolonged right ventricular (RV) apical pacing produces dysynchronous ventricular contraction, which may result in left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, whereas septal pacing sites might reflect a more synchronous LV activation. This study examined a method of evaluating alternate RV pacing sites using a template scoring system based on measuring the angle of lead attachment in the 40^o left anterior oblique (LAO) fluoroscopic view and its effect on altering the loop of lead in the RV. Methods: Twenty‐three consecutive patients for RV pacing were enrolled. Conventional active fixation leads were positioned in either the RV outflow tract (RVOT) or mid RV using a stylet designed for septal placement (Model 4140, St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA). Using LAO cine fluoroscopy, a generous loop of lead was inserted into the RV chamber and the change in angle of attachment determined. Results: Successful positioning of pacing leads at the RVOT septum (18 patients) and mid‐RV septum (five patients) was achieved. With introduction of more lead into the RV chamber, the angle of attachment in the LAO projection altered over a range of 6^o–32^o for all patients with a mean of 14.6 ± 6.6^o. In 87% of patients, the range was predominantly within the same template score with only minor overlap into another zone. Conclusions: This study shows that the angle of lead attachment in the RV is altered by introducing more lead, but in most cases, the template score remains the same. Further studies are required to determine the accuracy and efficacy of the templates. (PACE 2011; 34:1080–1086)     

Does RV Lead Positioning Provide Additional Benefit to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The left ventricular (LV) stimulation site is currently recommended to position the lead at the lateral wall. However, little is known as to whether right ventricular (RV) lead positioning is also important for cardiac resynchronization therapy. This study compared the acute hemodynamic response to biventricular pacing (BiV) at two different RV stimulation sites: RV high septum (RVHS) and RV apex (RVA). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using micro-manometer-tipped catheter, LV pressure was measured during BiV pacing at RV (RVA or RVHS) and LV free wall in 33 patients. Changes in LV dP/dt(max) and dP/dt(min) from baseline were compared between RVA and RVHS. BiV pacing increased dP/dt(max) by 30.3 +/- 1.2% in RVHS and by 33.3 +/- 1.7% in RVA (P = n.s.), and decreased dP/dt(min) by 11.4 +/- 0.7% in RVHS and by 13.0 +/- 1.0% in RVA (P = n.s.). To explore the optimal combination of RV and LV stimulation sites, we assessed separately the role of RV positioning with LV pacing at anterolateral (AL), lateral (LAT), or posterolateral (PL) segment. When the LV was paced at AL or LAT, the increase in dP/dt(max) with RVHS pacing was smaller than that with RVA pacing (AL: 12.2 +/- 2.2% vs 19.3 +/- 2.1%, P < 0.05; LAT: 22.0 +/- 2.7% vs 28.5 +/- 2.2%, P < 0.05). There was no difference in dP/dt(min) between RVHS- and RVA pacing in individual LV segments. CONCLUSIONS: RVHS stimulation has no overall advantage as an alternative stimulation site for RVA during BiV pacing. RVHS was equivalent with RVA in combination with the PL LV site, while RVA was superior to RVHS in combination with AL or LAT LV site.     

Long‐Term Nonoutflow Septal Versus Apical Right Ventricular Pacing: Relation to Left Ventricular Dyssynchrony

Background: Right ventricular (RV) apical pacing deteriorates left ventricular (LV) function. RV nonoutflow (low) septal pacing may better preserve ventricular performance, but this has not been systematically tested. Our aim was to assess (1) whether long‐term RV lower septal pacing is superior to RV apical pacing regarding LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF), and (2) if the changes in LV dyssynchrony imposed by pacing are related to the long‐term changes in LV volumes and EF. Methods: In thirty‐six patients with atrioventricular (AV) block, a dual‐chamber pacemaker was implanted. The ventricular electrode was placed either at the apex or at the lower septum, in a randomized sequence. Twenty‐four to 48 hours following implantation, we measured LV volumes, EF, and LV dyssynchrony (by tissue Doppler imaging), both with and without pacing. Patients were reassessed echocardiographically after 12 months. Results: Lower septal pacing induced a more synchronized pattern of LV contraction changes (P < 0.05). Following 12 months, differences were observed between groups regarding LV volumes and EF. EF increased within the septal group (from 52 ± 3.3% to 59 ± 3.0%, P < 0.05). A significant inverse relation was documented between changes in LV dyssynchrony and changes in EF (r =?0.64, P < 0.05). Conclusions: In patients with AV block, RV nonoutflow septal pacing represents an attractive alternative, since it preserves better and may even improve LV volumes and EF. Late changes in EF are associated with the changes in LV dyssynchrony imposed by pacing.     

Anodal right ventricular capture during left ventricular stimulation in CRT-implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to improve symptoms of patients with moderate to severe heart failure. Optimal CRT involves biventricular or left ventricular (LV) stimulation alone, atrio-ventricular (AV) delay optimization, and possibly interventricular timing adjustment. Recently, anodal capture of the right ventricle (RV) has been described for patients with CRT-pacemakers. It is unknown whether the same phenomenon exists in CRT systems associated with defibrillators (CRT-ICD). The RV leads used in these systems are different from pacemaker leads: they have a larger diameter and shocking coils, which may affect the occurrence of anodal capture. METHODS: We looked for anodal RV capture during LV stimulation in 11 consecutive patients who received a CRT-ICD system with RV leads with a true bipolar design. Fifteen patients who had RV leads with an integrated design were used as controls. Anodal RV and LV thresholds were determined at pulse width (pw) durations of 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0 ms. RESULTS: RV anodal capture during LV pacing was found in 11/11 patients at some output with true bipolar RV leads versus 0/15 patients with RV leads with an integrated bipolar design. Anodal RV capture threshold was more affected by changes in pw duration than LV capture threshold. In CRT-ICD systems, RV leads with a true bipolar design with the proximal ring also used as the anode for LV pacing are associated with a high incidence of anodal RV capture during LV pacing. This may affect the clinical response to alternative resynchronization methods using single LV stimulation or interventricular delay programming.     

Timing of the Left Ventricular Electrogram and Acute Hemodynamic Changes During Implant of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices

Study Objective: To examine the relationship between timing of the left ventricular (LV) electrogram (EGM) and its acute hemodynamic effect on instantaneous change in LV pressure (LVdP/dt_MAX).
Patients and Methods: In 30 patients (mean = age 67 ± 7.9 years) who underwent implant of cardiac resynchronization therapy systems, the right ventricular (RV) lead was implanted at the RV apex (n = 23) or RV septum (n = 7). The LV lead was placed in a posterior (n = 14) or posterolateral (n = 16) coronary sinus tributary. QRS duration, interval from Q wave to intrinsic deflection of the LV EGM (Q-LV), and interval between intrinsic deflection of RV EGM and LV EGM (RV-LV interval) were measured. The measurements were correlated with the hemodynamic effects of optimized biventricular (BiV) stimulation, using the Pearson correlation coefficient.
Results: The mean LVdP/dt_MAX at baseline was 734 ± 180 mmHg/s, and increased to 905 ± 165 mmHg/s during simultaneous BiV pacing, and to 933 ± 172 mmHg/s after V-V interval optimization. The Pearson correlation coefficient R between QRS duration, the Q-LV interval, and the RV-LV interval at the respective LVdP/dt_MAX was 0.291 (P = 0.66), 0.348 (P = 0.030), and 0.340 (P = 0.033).
Conclusions: Similar significant correlations were observed between the acute hemodynamic effect of optimized BiV stimulation and the Q-LV and the RV-LV intervals. However, individual measurements showed an 80-ms cut-off for the Q-LV interval, beyond which the increase in LVdP/dt_MAX was <10%._.     

Stimulation rate and the optimal interventricular interval during cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation

Background: Optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with respect to the interventricular (V‐V) interval is mainly limited to pacing at a resting heart rate. We studied the effect of higher stimulation rates with univentricular and biventricular (BiV) pacing modes including the effect of the V‐V interval optimization. Methods: In 36 patients with heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF), the effects of right ventricular (RV), left ventricular (LV), simultaneous BiV, and optimized sequential BiV (BiVopt) pacing were measured. The effect of the pacing mode and the optimal V‐V interval was determined at stimulation rates of 70, 90, and 110 ppm using invasive measurement of the maximum rate of left ventricular pressure rise (LV dP/dt_max). Results: The average LV dP/dt _max for all pacing modalities at stimulation rates of 70, 90, and 110 ppm was 781 ± 176, 833 ± 197, and 884 ± 223 mmHg/s for RV pacing; 893 ± 178, 942 ± 186, and 981 ± 194 mmHg/s for LV pacing; 904 ± 179, 973 ± 187, and 1052 ± 206 mmHg/s for simultaneous BiV pacing; and 941 ± 186, 1010 ± 198, and 1081 ± 206 mmHg/s for BiVopt pacing, respectively. In BiVopt pacing, the corresponding optimal V‐V interval decreased from 34 ± 29, 28 ± 28, and 21 ± 27 ms at stimulation rates of 70, 90, and 110 ppm, respectively . In two individuals, LV dP/dt_max decreased when the pacing rate was increased from 90 to 110 ppm. Conclusion: In patients with AF and heart failure, LV dP/dt_max increases for all pacing modalities at increasing stimulation rates in most, but not all, patients. The rise in LV dP/dt_max with increasing stimulation rates is higher in biventricular (BiV and BiVopt) than in univentricular (LV and RV) pacing. The optimal V‐V interval at sequential biventricular pacing decreases with increasing stimulation rates.     

Electrocardiogram‐Based Algorithm to Predict the Left Ventricular Lead Position in Recipients of Cardiac Resynchronization Systems

Introduction: Biventricular pacing is associated with various electrocardiographic patterns depending on the position of the left ventricular (LV) lead. We aimed to develop an electrocardiogram‐based algorithm to predict the position of the LV lead. Methods: The algorithm was developed in 100 consecutive recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems. QRS axis, morphology, and polarity were analyzed with a view to define the specific electrocardiographic characteristics associated with the various LV lead positions . The algorithm was prospectively validated in 50 consecutive CRT device recipients. Results: The first analysis of the algorithm was the QRS morphology in V₁. A positive R wave in V₁ suggested LV lateral or posterior wall stimulation. A QS pattern was specific of anterior LV leads. In the presence of an R wave in V₁, V₆ was analyzed to distinguish between an inferior and anterior LV lead. Inferior leads were never associated with a positive V₆. To differentiate between lateral and posterior positions, we analyzed the pattern in V₂. Lateral leads were associated with an R morphology in V₁ and a negative V₂. Posterior leads were associated with an R morphology in V₁ and V₂. The algorithm allowed a reliable distinction between an inferior or anterior and a lateral or posterior lead position in 90% of patients. Inferior, anterior, lateral, and posterior positions were reliably distinguished in 80% of patients. Conclusion: This algorithm predicted the position of the LV lead with a high sensitivity and predictive value.