Electrocardiographic Patterns during:. Pacing the Great Cardiac and Middle Cardiac Veins

Electrocardiography of cardiac resynchronization therapy: Pitfalls and practical tips

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been established as an effective mode of therapy in patients with heart failure and concurrent cardiac dyssynchrony, principally in the form of left bundle branch block (LBBB). The widespread use of CRT has ushered in a new landscape in 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG). ECG readings in these patients are most important to guide troubleshooting and also appropriate device programming, as well as discerning and managing nonresponders. A set of four ECG recordings need to accompany each patient with a CRT device, including a baseline ECG and recordings from monochamber (right and left ventricular) and biventricular pacing, which can be compared against a new recording to facilitate the evaluation of proper versus problematic biventricular pacing. Precordial ECG leads V1/2 acquired at the fourth intercostal space and limb leads, I and III, together with a quick assessment of perpendicular leads I and aVF to determine the quadrant of the QRS axis in the hexaxial diagram, may provide the framework for proper ECG interpretation in these patients. This important issue of 12-lead ECG in CRT patients is herein reviewed, pitfalls are pointed out and practical tips are provided for ECG reading to help recognize and manage problems with CRT device function. Furthermore, several pertinent ECG recordings and tabulated data are provided, and an algorithm is suggested that integrates prior algorithms and relevant information from current literature.

The postimplantation electrocardiogram predicts clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Biventricular (BiV) pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is intended to improve left ventricular function by coordinating systolic activity of the septum and free walls. Optimal resynchronization should be manifested by 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) patterns consistent with resynchronized activation, a tall (≥4 mm) R wave in V1, and predominant negative deflection in lead I (RV1SI). We investigated whether the presence or absence of RV1SI predicts heart failure outcomes within 1 year of CRT implant.

METHODS

Two independent physicians reviewed the paced ECG of 213 patients post-CRT device implantation with disputes resolved by a third reviewer. The primary end points of all-cause death, unplanned hospitalization, left ventricular assist device implant, or transplant within a 1-year follow-up were blindly adjudicated according to standard definitions. Groups were compared via Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models to determine association with event-free survival.

RESULTS

Among CRT patients postimplantation, 56 (26.3%) exhibited the RV1SI pattern on ECG. Patients with the RV1SI pattern were significantly less likely to achieve the primary end point as compared to patients without the RV1SI pattern (33.9% vs 52.2%; Log Rank P = 0.022). This difference was driven by a significantly lower risk for unplanned hospitalization among patients with the RV1SI pattern (hazard ratio = 0.510; confidence interval [0.298, 0.876]). The predictive value remained after adjustment for potential confounders (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The 12-lead ECG postimplantation predicts clinical outcomes of BiV pacing. Such prediction may be useful in predicting the need for alternative or advanced heart failure therapies. Further study into ECG patterns may help to prospectively guide CRT.

Electrocardiographic diagnosis of biventricular pacing in patients with nonapical right ventricular leads

BACKGROUND

Assessment of left ventricular (LV) capture is of paramount importance in patients with biventricular (BiV) pacing. Our goal was to identify electrocardiographic features that differentiate between BiV and right ventricular (RV)-only pacing in patients with nonapical RV leads.

METHODS

The study enrolled 300 consecutive patients with BiV devices and nonapical RV leads, and obtained from them 558 electrocardiograms with either BiV pacing (n = 300) or RV-only pacing (n = 258). RV pacing served as a surrogate for loss of LV capture. Electrocardiograms from the first 150 patients were used to identify BiV-specific features, and to construct an algorithm to differentiate between BiV and RV-only pacing. Electrocardiograms from the second 150 patients were used to validate the algorithm.

RESULTS

The following electrocardiographic features typical of BiV pacing were identified: QS in lead V6 (specificity = 98.7%, sensitivity = 54.7%), dominant R in lead V1 (specificity = 100%, sensitivity = 23.3%), q in lead V6 (specificity = 96%, sensitivity = 22.7%), and a QRS < 160 ms (specificity = 100%, sensitivity = 66.0%). The algorithm based on those features was found to have an overall diagnostic accuracy of 95.0%, a specificity of 96.0%, and a sensitivity of 93.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified QRS features that were very specific for BiV pacing in patients with nonapical RV leads. Sequential arrangement of those features resulted in an algorithm that was very accurate for differentiating between BiV pacing and loss of LV capture.