Please note: We are currently experiencing some performance issues across the site, and some pages may be slow to load. We are working on restoring normal service soon. Importing new articles from Word documents is also currently unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Butcher CJT

and 18 more

Background: It is not known whether the optimal Atrioventricular delay (AV opt) varies between left ventricular (LV) pacing site during endocardial biventricular pacing (BiVP) and may therefore needs consideration. Methods: We assessed the haemodynamic AV opt in patients with chronic heart failure undergoing endocardial LV lead implantation. AV opt was assessed during atrio-biventricular pacing (BVP) with a “roving LV lead”. Up to four locations were studied: mid lateral wall, mid septum (or a close alternative), site of greatest haemodynamic improvement and LV lead implant site. The AV opt was compared to a fixed AV delay of 180ms. Results: Seventeen patients were included (12 male, aged 66.5 +/- 12.8 years, ejection fraction 26 +/- 7%, 16 left bundle branch block or high percentage of right ventricular pacing (RVP), QRS duration 167 +/-27 ms). In most locations (62/63), AV opt increased systolic blood pressure during BiVP compared with RVP (relative improvement 6 mmHg, IQR 4-9mmHg). Compared to a fixed AV delay the haemodynamic improvement at AV opt was higher (1mmHg, IQR 0.2-2.6mmHg, p<0.001). Within most patients (16/17), we observed a difference in AV opt between pacing sites (median paced AV opt 209 ms, IQR 117-250). Within this range, the haemodynamic impact of these differences was small (median loss 0.6 mmHg, IQR 0.1-2.6mmHg). Conclusion: Within a patient, different endocardial LV lead locations have slightly different haemodynamic AV opt which are superior to a fixed AV delay. The haemodynamic consequence of applying an optimum from a different lead location is small.