Tailoring device settings in cardiac resynchronization therapy using electrograms from pacing electrodes.

Aims: Left ventricular (LV) fusion pacing appears to be at least as beneficial as biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Optimal LV fusion pacing critically requires adjusting the atrioventricular (AV)-delay to the delay between atrial pacing and intrinsic right ventricular (RV) activation (Ap-RV). We explored the use of electrogram (EGM)-based vectorloop (EGMV) derived from EGMs of implanted pacing leads to achieve optimal LV fusion pacing and to compare it with conventional approaches.

Methods and results: During CRT-device implantation, 28 patients were prospectively studied. During atrial-LV pacing (Ap-LVp) at various AV-delays, LV dP/dtmax, 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), and unipolar EGMs were recorded. Electrocardiogram and electrogram were used to reconstruct a vectorcardiogram (VCG) and EGMV, respectively, from which the maximum QRS amplitude (QRSampl), was extracted. Ap-RV was determined: (i) conventionally as the longest AV-delay at which QRS morphology was visually unaltered during RV pacing at increasing AV-delays(Ap-RVvis; reference-method); (ii) 70% of delay between atrial pacing and RV sensing (Ap-RVaCRT); and (iii) the delay between atrial pacing and onset of QRS (Ap-QRSonset). In both the EGMV and VCG, the longest AV-delay showing an unaltered QRSampl as compared with Ap-LVp with a short AV-delay, corresponded to Ap-RVvis. In contrast, Ap-QRSonset and Ap-RVaCRT were larger. The Ap-LVp induced increase in LV dP/dtmax was larger at Ap-RVvis, Ap-RVEGMV, and Ap-RVVCG than at Ap-QRSonset (all P < 0.05) and Ap-RVaCRT (P = 0.02, P = 0.13, and P = 0.03, respectively).

Conclusion: In this acute study, it is shown that the EGMV QRSampl can be used to determine optimal and individual CRT-device settings for LV fusion pacing, possibly improving long-term CRT response.