» Articles » PMID: 20735713

Site-specific Differences in Latency Intervals During Biventricular Pacing: Impact on Paced QRS Morphology and Echo-optimized V-V Interval

Overview
Date 2010 Aug 26
PMID 20735713
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To investigate differences in latency intervals during right ventricular (RV) pacing and left ventricular (LV) pacing from the (postero-)lateral cardiac vein in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients and their relationship to echo-optimized interventricular (V-V) intervals and paced QRS morphology.

Methods: We recorded digital 12-lead electrocardiograms in 40 CRT patients during RV, LV, and biventricular pacing at three output settings. Stimulus-to-earliest QRS deflection (latency) intervals were measured in all leads. Echocardiographic atrioventricular (AV) and V-V optimization was performed using aortic velocity time integrals.

Results: Latency intervals were longer during LV (34 ± 17, 29 ± 15, 28 ± 15 ms) versus RV apical pacing (17 ± 8, 15 ± 8, 13 ± 7 ms) for threshold, threshold ×3, and maximal output, respectively (P < 0.001), and shortened with increased stimulus strength (P < 0.05). The echo-optimized V-V interval was 58 ± 31 ms in five of 40 (12%) patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms compared to 29 ± 20 ms in 35 patients with LV latency < 40 ms (P < 0.01). During simultaneous biventricular pacing, four of five (80%) patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms exhibited a left bundle branch block (LBBB) pattern in lead V(1) compared to three of 35 (9%) patients with LV latency < 40 ms (P < 0.01). After optimization, all five patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms registered a dominant R wave in lead V(1) .

Conclusions: LV pacing from the lateral cardiac vein is associated with longer latency intervals than endocardial RV pacing. LV latency causes delayed LV activation and requires V-V interval adjustment to improve hemodynamic response to CRT. Patients with LV latency ≥ 40 ms most often display an LBBB pattern in lead V(1) during simultaneous biventricular pacing, but a right bundle branch block after V-V interval optimization.

Citing Articles

Conduction System Pacing for CRT: A Physiological Alternative.

Herweg B, Mumtaz M, Vijayaraman P Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2025; 14:e04.

PMID: 40017670 PMC: 11865673. DOI: 10.15420/aer.2024.10.


Recent Advances in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Current Treatment and Future Direction.

Siddiqui A, Tasouli-Drakou V, Ringor M, DiCaro M, Yee B, Lei K J Clin Med. 2025; 14(3).

PMID: 39941560 PMC: 11818169. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14030889.


Multicenter Hemodynamic Assessment of the LOT-CRT Strategy: When Does Combining Left Bundle Branch Pacing and Coronary Venous Pacing Enhance Resynchronization?: Primary Results of the CSPOT Study.

Jastrzebski M, Foley P, Chandrasekaran B, Whinnett Z, Vijayaraman P, Upadhyay G Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2024; 17(11):e013059.

PMID: 39440428 PMC: 11575906. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.124.013059.


The Evolving Role of Electrocardiography in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Noheria A, Sodhi S, Orme G Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2019; 21(12):91.

PMID: 31828564 DOI: 10.1007/s11936-019-0784-6.


Incidence, predictors, and impact on outcome of increased left ventricular latency in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.

DOnofrio A, Caico S, Iuliano A, Pieragnoli P, Bianchi V, Orsida D J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018; 51(3):245-252.

PMID: 29502194 DOI: 10.1007/s10840-018-0321-7.