Kearney, L.G., Wai, B., Ord, M., Burrell, L.M., O’Donnell, D. and Srivastava, P.M. (2011) Validation of Rapid Automated Tissue Synchronization Imaging for the Assessment of Cardiac Dyssynchrony in Sinus and Non-Sinus Rhythm. Europace, 13, 270-276.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euq442

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