RV-Only Pacing Can Produce a Q Wave in Lead 1 and an R Wave in V1: Implications for Biventricular Pacing

Case of a misleading ECG

An elderly man with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of complete heart block with pacemaker placement was found to have pacemaker lead infection and required device extraction. He had a standard dual chamber pacemaker in place, however the ECG obtained showed paced QRS complexes with presence of R wave in lead V1 and QS in lead I suggestive of left ventricular pacing. Additional imaging with CT scan obtained for confirmation revealed that the heart was displaced to the left posterior hemithorax secondary to pulmonary disease. Due to significant posterolateral rotation of the heart, a right ventricular paced rhythm can demonstrate Q/S waves in the lateral leads (I, aVL, V5-6) and R waves in the right precordial leads (V1-3). This can be misdiagnosed as a left ventricular paced rhythm.

Electrical wavefront fusion in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block and cardiac resynchronization therapy: Implications for optimization

BACKGROUND

Novel metrics of electrical dyssynchrony based on multi-electrode mapping and ECG-based markers of fusion are better predictors of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response than QRS duration.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a new methodology for measuring electrical synchrony based on wavefront fusion and electrocardiographic cancellation in patients with CRT and its potential for CRT optimization.

METHODS

Patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) type conduction and CRT (n = 84) were studied at multiple device settings using an ECG belt (53 anterior and posterior electrodes). The area between combinations of anterior and posterior curves (AUC) was calculated and cardiac resynchronization index (CRI) defined as percent change in AUC compared to LBBB.

RESULTS

In 14 patients with complete heart block or atrial fibrillation, CRI at optimal ventriculo-ventricular delay (VVD) (40 ± 19 ms) was significantly higher than with simultaneous biventricular pacing (BiVp) (90 ± 8.6% vs. 54.2 ± 24.2%, p < 0.001). In all 70 patients paced LV-only, LV-paced wavefront was ahead of native wavefront at short atrio-ventricular delay (AVD) and CRI increased with increase in AVD, peaked, and then decreased. Optimal CRI during LV-only pacing was significantly better than optimal CRI with simultaneous BiVp (89.6 ± 8% vs. 64.4 ± 22%, p < 0.001), and occurred at AVD 68 ± 22 ms less than the atrial-RV sensed interval. With sequential BiVp, best CRI was 83.9 ± 13% (with LV preactivation of 40 ± 20 ms). Best CRI at any setting was markedly better than CRI at standard setting (91.6 ± 7.7% vs. 52.7 ± 23.3, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We describe a novel non-invasive investigational tool that quantifies wavefront fusion and electrical dyssynchrony, and may allow for individualized CRT optimization.

Twelve-Lead ECG Optimization of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With and Without Delayed Enhancement on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Background

Delayed enhancement (DE) on magnetic resonance imaging is associated with ventricular arrhythmias, adverse events, and worse left ventricular mechanics. We investigated the impact of DE on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes and the effect of CRT optimization.

Methods and Results

We studied 130 patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤40% and QRS ≥120 ms, contrast cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and both pre‐ and 1‐year post‐CRT echocardiograms. Sixty‐three (48%) patients did not have routine optimization of CRT. The remaining patients were optimized for wavefront fusion by 12‐lead ECG. The primary end point in this study was change in EF following CRT. To investigate the association between electrical dyssynchrony and EF outcomes, the standard deviation of activation times from body‐surface mapping was calculated during native conduction and selected device settings in 52 of the optimized patients. Patients had no DE (n=45), midwall septal stripe (n=30), or scar (n=55). Patients without DE had better ∆EF (13±10 versus 4±10 units; P<0.01). Optimized patients had greater ∆EF in midwall stripe (2±9 versus 12±12 units; P=0.01) and scar (0±7 versus 5±10; P=0.04) groups, but not in the no‐DE group. Patients without DE had greater native standard deviation of activation times (P=0.03) and greater ∆standard deviation of activation times with standard programming (P=0.01). Device optimization reduced standard deviation of activation times only in patients with DE (P<0.01).

Conclusions

DE on magnetic resonance imaging is associated with worse EF outcomes following CRT. Device optimization is associated with improved EF and reduced electrical dyssynchrony in patients with DE.