Article citationsMore>>

Russo, A.M., Stainback, R.F., Bailey, S.R., Epstein, A.E., Heidenreich, P.A., Jessup, M., et al. (2013) ACCF/HRS/ AHA/ASE/HFSA/ SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2013 Appropriate Use Criteria for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Failure Society of America, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Heart Rhythm, 10, e11-e58.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Implant Electrical Characteristics Predict Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

  AUTHORS: Tina Lin, Paula Crosby, Hariharan Sugumar, Ryan Spencer, Michael Darragh Flannery, David O’Donnell

  KEYWORDS: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, Biventricular Pacing, Intracardiac Electrograms, Pacemaker Lead Position, Echocardiography, Heart Failure

  JOURNAL NAME: World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases, Vol.4 No.10, September 16, 2014

  ABSTRACT: Background: The optimal site for left ventricular (LV) lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains uncertain. Intra-procedural measures for predicting response to CRT have shown mixed results. Hypothesis: This study analyzed intracardiac electrogram (IEGM) characteristics at implant and assessed patients’ response rates (RR) to CRT. Methods: Forty-one consecutive patients undergoing CRT were enrolled. Medically optimized patients in sinus rhythm, with ejection fraction (EF) 34 were included. Right ventricular (RV) leads were positioned mid-septum. LV leads were targeted to the latest mechanical activation on echocardiography. IEGMs were measured, assessing intrinsic RV-to-LV delay (int RV-LV), RV-paced delay (RVp-LV), and LV-paced delay (LVp-RV). The difference between LVp-RV and RVp-LV was recorded as delta-LV. Response was defined as improvement of EF > 10%, reduction in LVEDD > 15% and improvement of ≥1 NYHA class. Results: Overall RR was 79%. LV leads were placed in the target location in 91%. Int RV-LV was 101 ± 14 ms in responders; 78 ± 11 ms in non-responders (p 100 had a RR of 87%; int RV-LV 40 ms had a RR of 56%; delta-LV