We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
A Pilot Study Assessing ECG versus ECHO Ventriculoventricular Optimization in Pediatric Resynchronization Patients.
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 2016 Februrary
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications and management are well described in adults. Echocardiography (ECHO) has been used to optimize mechanical synchrony in these patients; however, there are issues with reproducibility and time intensity. Pediatric patients add challenges, with diverse substrates and limited capacity for cooperation. Electrocardiographic (ECG) methods to assess electrical synchrony are expeditious but have not been extensively studied in children. We sought to compare ECHO and ECG CRT optimization in children.
METHODS: Prospective, pediatric, single-center cross-over trial comparing ECHO and ECG optimization with CRT. Patients were assigned to undergo either ECHO or ECG optimization, followed for 6 months, and crossed-over to the other assignment for another 6 months. ECHO pulsed-wave tissue Doppler and 12-lead ECG were obtained for 5 VV delays. ECG optimization was defined as the shortest QRSD and ECHO optimization as the lowest dyssynchrony index. ECHOs/ECGs were interpreted by readers blinded to optimization technique. After each 6 month period, these data were collected: ejection fraction, velocimetry-derived cardiac index, quality of life, ECHO-derived stroke distance, M-mode dyssynchrony, study cost, and time. Outcomes for each optimization method were compared.
RESULTS: From June 2012 to December 2013, 19 patients enrolled. Mean age was 9.1 ± 4.3 years; 14 (74%) had structural heart disease. The mean time for optimization was shorter using ECG than ECHO (9 ± 1 min vs. 68 ± 13 min, P < 0.01). Mean cost for charges was $4,400 ± 700 less for ECG. No other outcome differed between groups.
CONCLUSION: ECHO optimization of synchrony was not superior to ECG optimization in this pilot study. ECG optimization required less time and cost than ECHO optimization.
METHODS: Prospective, pediatric, single-center cross-over trial comparing ECHO and ECG optimization with CRT. Patients were assigned to undergo either ECHO or ECG optimization, followed for 6 months, and crossed-over to the other assignment for another 6 months. ECHO pulsed-wave tissue Doppler and 12-lead ECG were obtained for 5 VV delays. ECG optimization was defined as the shortest QRSD and ECHO optimization as the lowest dyssynchrony index. ECHOs/ECGs were interpreted by readers blinded to optimization technique. After each 6 month period, these data were collected: ejection fraction, velocimetry-derived cardiac index, quality of life, ECHO-derived stroke distance, M-mode dyssynchrony, study cost, and time. Outcomes for each optimization method were compared.
RESULTS: From June 2012 to December 2013, 19 patients enrolled. Mean age was 9.1 ± 4.3 years; 14 (74%) had structural heart disease. The mean time for optimization was shorter using ECG than ECHO (9 ± 1 min vs. 68 ± 13 min, P < 0.01). Mean cost for charges was $4,400 ± 700 less for ECG. No other outcome differed between groups.
CONCLUSION: ECHO optimization of synchrony was not superior to ECG optimization in this pilot study. ECG optimization required less time and cost than ECHO optimization.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app