Programming optimal atrioventricular delay in dual chamber pacing using peak endocardial acceleration: Comparison with a standard echocardiographic procedure

PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Volumn 26, Issue 1 II, 2003, Pages 210-213

  Dupuis, Jean Marc ^a   Kobeissi, Adonis ^b   Vitali, Luca ^b   Gaggini, Guido ^b   Merheb, Michel ^a   Rouleau, Frederic ^a   Leftheriotis, Georges ^a   Ritter, Philippe ^c   Victor, Jacques ^a  

^a ANGERS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^b Cyberonics Inc   (Italy)

^c Clinique InParys   (France)

Author keywords

Atrioventricular delay; Pacemaker programming; Peak endocardial acceleration

Indexed keywords

ACCELERATION; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTIFICIAL HEART PACEMAKER; ATRIOVENTRICULAR BLOCK; ATRIOVENTRICULAR CONDUCTION; AUTOANALYSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONFERENCE PAPER; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; ENDOCARDIUM; FEMALE; HEART PACING; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PULSE GENERATOR; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 0346665532     PISSN: 01478389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.00018.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Carleton RA, Passovoy M, Graettinger JS. The importance of the contribution and timing of left atrial systole. Clin Sci 1966; 30:151-159.
2. Friedlingsdorf J, Gerber AE, Dür P, et al. Importance of an individually programmed atrioventricular delay at rest and on work capacity in-patients with dual chamber pacemakers. PACE 1994; 17:37-45.
3. Mehta D, Gilmour S, Ward DE, et al. Optimal atrioventricular delay at rest and during exercise in-patients with dual chamber pacemakers: A noninvasive assessment by continuous wave Doppler. Br Heart J 1989; 61:161-166.
4. Leinbach RC, Chamberlain DA, Kastor JA, et al. A comparison of the hemodynamic effects of ventricular and sequential AV pacing in-patients with heart block. Am Heart J 1969; 78:502-508.
5. Leman RB, Kartz JM. Radionuclide evaluation of dual chamber pacing: Comparison between variable atrioventricular intervals and ventricular pacing. PACE 1985; 8:408-414.
6. Nitsch J, Seiderer M, Büll U, et al. Evaluation of left ventricular performance by radionuclide ventriculography in-patients with AV versus ventricular demand pacemakers. Am Heart J 1984; 107:906-911.
7. Eugene M, Lascault G, Frank R, et al. Assessment of the optimal atrioventricular delay in DDD paced patients by impedance plethysmography. Eur Heart J 1989; 10:250-255.
8. Lascault G, Abergel E, Frank R, et al. Doppler echocardiography of the effect of atrioventricular delay on mitral flow in dual chamber pacing. Arch Mal Cœur 1991; 84:173-178.
9. Rey JL, Slama MA, Tribouilloy C, et al. A doppler echocardiography study of the haemodynamic changes associated with the passage from double chamber pacing to atrial detection in patients with dual chamber pacemakers: Value of hysteresis of the atrioventricular delay. Arch Mal Cœur 1990; 83:961-966.
10. Ritter PH, Dib JC, Lelièvre T, et al. Quick determination of the optimal AV delay at rest in patients paced in DDD mode for complete AV block. (abstract) Eur J Cardiac Pacing Electrophysiol 1994; 4:A163.
11. Sheppard RC, Ren JF, Ross J, et al. Doppler echocardiographic assessment of the hemodynamic benefits of rate adaptive AV delay during exercise in paced patients with complete heart block. PACE 1993; 16:2157-2167.
12. Clementy J, on behalf of The European PEA Clinical Investigation Group. Dual chamber rate responsive pacing system driven by contractility: Final assessment after 1-year follow-up. PACE 1998; 21:2192-2197.
13. Deharo JC, Peyre JP, Ritter PH, et al. A sensor-based evaluation of heart contractility in patients with head-up tilt-induced syncope. PACE 1998; 21:223-226.
14. Langerfeld H, Krein A, Kirstein M, et al. Peak endocardial acceleration-based clinical testing of the "BEST" DDDR pacemaker. PACE 1998; 21:2187-2191.
15. Rickards A, Bombardini T, Corbucci G, et al. On behalf of the Multicenter PEA Study Group. An implantable intracardiac accelerometer for monitoring myocardial contractility. PACE 1996; 19:2066-2071.
16. Dupuis JM, Merheb M, Victor J, et al. Determination of the best value of peak endocardial acceleration for optimization of the AV delay at rest in DDDR pacing. Correlation with echocardiographic evaluation. (abstract) Europace 2000; 1(Suppl. D):D23.
17. Ritter P, Padaletti L, Gillio-Meina L, et al. Determination of the optimal atrioventricular delay in DDD pacing. Comparison between echo and peak endocardial acceleration measurements. Europace 1999; 1:126-130.
18. Iwase M, Sotobata I, Yokota M, et al. Evaluation by pulsed Doppler echocardiography of the atrial contribution to left ventricular filling in patients with DDD pacemakers. Am J Cardiol 1986; 58:104-109.
19. Pearson AC, Janosik DL, Redd RR, et al. Doppler echocardiographic assessment of the effect of varying atrioventricular delay and pacemaker mode on left ventricular filling. Am Heart J 1988; 15:611-621.
20. Sulke AN, Chambers JB, Sowton E. The effect of atrioventricular delay programming in patients with DDDR pacemakers. Eur Heart J 1992; 13:464-472.
21. Chamberlain DA, Leinbach RC, Vassaux CE, et al. Sequential atrioventricular pacing in heart block complicating acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1970; 282:577-582.
22. Hochleitner M, Hortnagl H, Choi-Keung NG, et al. Usefulness of physiologic dual-chamber pacing in drug-resistant idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 1990; 66:198-202.
23. Auricchio A, Ding J, Spinelli JC, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy restores optimal atrioventricular mechanical timing in heart failure patients with ventricular conduction delay. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39:1163-1169.