Heart rhythm O2 · 2026
Acute hemodynamic effects of a novel algorithm for cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization: Results from the BIO|Adapt study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Garcia-Fernandez Francisco Javier, Ando Kenji, Kato Ritsushi, Martínez Juan Gabriel, Berruezo Antonio, Jimenez Javier, Anneken Lars, Hironobe Naoya, Harada Masahide, Yagishita Atsuhiko, Osca-Asensi Joaquin, Mitkowski Przemysław, Hayashi Hidemori, Kishihara Jun, Pardo-Fresno Mónica, Ebrahim Iftikhar, Meyhöfer Jürgen, Salguero-Bodes Rafael, Marques Pedro, Moreno Alicia, Pinart Mariona, Bulava Alan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A considerable proportion of patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and prolonged QRS duration fail to respond adequately to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Suboptimal atrioventricular (AV) delay programming is a key factor leading to diminished response.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to acutely correlate aortic velocity time integral, LVEF, and QRS duration with 3 programming strategies in the postimplantation setting: AV delay automatically set by a novel CRT AutoAdapt algorithm, AV delay optimized by echocardiography, and standard ("in-box") programming.
METHODS: Under normal intrinsic AV conduction (<250 ms after atrial pacing), the CRT AutoAdapt algorithm automatically switches to left ventricular-only pacing and adapts the AV delay to 50%, 70% (default), or 90% of intrinsic AV conduction. In our study, 163 CRT-defibrillator recipients (mean age 69.2 ± 9.2 years; 32% female; LVEF 27.7% ± 6.6%; 76% with left bundle branch block) underwent echocardiographic and electrocardiographic assessments at prehospital discharge.
RESULTS: With the default 70% AV adaptation, the CRT AutoAdapt automatically set a similar AV delay (117.1 ± 23.9 ms) compared with echocardiography-guided optimization (118.3 ± 30.2 ms; P = .94). Strong concordance was observed between the algorithm and echocardiography-guided optimization for aortic velocity time integral (concordance correlation coefficient 0.96) and LVEF (0.93). Both optimization methods significantly outperformed standard AV programming for LVEF improvement (P < .001) and QRS-width reduction (P < .01), with no significant differences between optimization approaches.
CONCLUSION: Acute hemodynamic effects of CRT AutoAdapt and echocardiography-guided AV-delay optimization were similar, with equivalent cardiac performance. This device-based approach offers the potential advantage of continuous adaptation to changing physiological conditions without requiring resource-intensive in-office optimization procedures.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to acutely correlate aortic velocity time integral, LVEF, and QRS duration with 3 programming strategies in the postimplantation setting: AV delay automatically set by a novel CRT AutoAdapt algorithm, AV delay optimized by echocardiography, and standard ("in-box") programming.
METHODS: Under normal intrinsic AV conduction (<250 ms after atrial pacing), the CRT AutoAdapt algorithm automatically switches to left ventricular-only pacing and adapts the AV delay to 50%, 70% (default), or 90% of intrinsic AV conduction. In our study, 163 CRT-defibrillator recipients (mean age 69.2 ± 9.2 years; 32% female; LVEF 27.7% ± 6.6%; 76% with left bundle branch block) underwent echocardiographic and electrocardiographic assessments at prehospital discharge.
RESULTS: With the default 70% AV adaptation, the CRT AutoAdapt automatically set a similar AV delay (117.1 ± 23.9 ms) compared with echocardiography-guided optimization (118.3 ± 30.2 ms; P = .94). Strong concordance was observed between the algorithm and echocardiography-guided optimization for aortic velocity time integral (concordance correlation coefficient 0.96) and LVEF (0.93). Both optimization methods significantly outperformed standard AV programming for LVEF improvement (P < .001) and QRS-width reduction (P < .01), with no significant differences between optimization approaches.
CONCLUSION: Acute hemodynamic effects of CRT AutoAdapt and echocardiography-guided AV-delay optimization were similar, with equivalent cardiac performance. This device-based approach offers the potential advantage of continuous adaptation to changing physiological conditions without requiring resource-intensive in-office optimization procedures.