A method for accurately and dynamically optimising pacemaker atrio-ventricular delay timing using implantable physiological biomarkers. (24th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Miyazawa, AA; Keene, D; Johal, M; Arnold, AD; Peters, NS; Kanagaratnam, P; Linton, NWF; Lim, PB; Lefroy, DC; Ng, FS; Qureshi, NA; Koa-Wing, M; Whinnett, ZI; Francis, DP; Shun-Shin, MJ
• Is Part Of: Europace. Volume 23:Supplement 3(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-05-24
• Subjects: Arrhythmia -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Catheter ablation -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1093/europace/euab116.464
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1099-5129

Abstract

Abstract: Funding Acknowledgements: Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): BRAVO trial: BHF SP/10/002/28189, FS/10/038, FS/11/92/29122, FS/13/44/30291) National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre. HOPE-HF trial: British Heart Foundation (CS/15/3/31405, FS/13/44/30291, FS/15/53/31615, FS/14/27/30752, FS/10/038). Introduction: The optimal atrioventricular (AV) delay for implantable cardiac devices can be derived by echocardiography or beat-by-beat blood pressure measurements. However, both of these approaches are labour intensive and neither could be incorporated into an implantable cardiac device for frequent repeated optimisations. Laser Doppler perfusion monitoring (LDPM) measures blood flow through tissue. LDPM has been miniaturised ready to be incorporated into future implantable cardiac devices. Purpose: We studied if LDPM is a clinically reliable alternative method to blood-pressure measurements to determine optimal AV delay. Methods: Data from 58 patients undergoing 94 clinical AVD optimisations using LDPM and simultaneous non-invasive beat-by-beat blood pressure was obtained. The optimal AV delay for each method and for each optimisation was determined using a curve of haemodynamic response to switching from AAI (reference state) to DDD (test state) at a series of AV delays (40, 80, 120, 160, 200, 240 ms). We then compared the derived optimal AV delays between the two measurement approaches. We also assessed the impact of the paced heart-rate on agreement between laser Doppler and Blood-Pressure derived optimal AV delays. Results: The AV delay derived using LDPM was not clinically significant different from that derived by blood pressure changes. The median difference was -9ms (IQR -26 to 7, p = 0.05). Variability between the two methods was low (median absolute deviation 17ms). Optimisations performed at higher heart-rates resulted in a non-significant smaller difference between the LDPM and blood-pressure derived AV delays (median absolute deviation 12 vs 22 ms, p = 0.11). Conclusions: Optimal AVDs derived from non-invasive blood-pressure or laser Doppler perfusion methods are clinically equivalent. The addition of laser Doppler to future implantable cardiac devices may enable devices to dynamically and reliably optimise AV delays.