Open Access

Björn Riedel, Matthias Heinke, Frank Weber, Christoph A. Nienaber, Bruno Ismer

• Introduction: In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), individual AV delay (AVD) optimization can effectively increase hemodynamics and reduce non-responder rate. Accurate, automatic and easily comprehensible algorithms for the follow-up are desirable. QuickOpt is the first attempt of a semi-automatic intracardiac electrogram (IEGM) based AVD algorithm. We aimed to compare its accuracy andIntroduction: In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), individual AV delay (AVD) optimization can effectively increase hemodynamics and reduce non-responder rate. Accurate, automatic and easily comprehensible algorithms for the follow-up are desirable. QuickOpt is the first attempt of a semi-automatic intracardiac electrogram (IEGM) based AVD algorithm. We aimed to compare its accuracy and usefulness by in-vitro and in-vivo studies. Methods: Using the programmable ARSI-4 four-chamber heart rhythm and IEGM simulator (HKP, Germany), the QuickOpt feature of an Epic HF system (St. Jude, USA) was tested in-vitro by simulated atrial IEGM amplitudes between 0.3 and 3.5mV during both, manual and automatic atrial sensing between 0.2 and 1.0mV. Subsequently, in 21 heart failure patients with implanted biventricular defibrillators, QuickOpt was performed in-vivo. Results of the algorithm for VDD and DDD stimulation were compared with echo AV delay optimization. Results: In-vitro simulations demonstrated a QuickOpt measuring accuracy of ± 8ms. Depending on atrial IEGM amplitude, the algorithm proposed optimal AVD between 90 and 150ms for VDD and between 140 and 200ms for DDD operation, respectively. In-vivo, QuickOpt difference between individual AVD in DDD and VDD mode was either 50ms (20pts) or 40ms (1pt). QuickOpt and echo AVD differed by 41 ± 25ms (7 – 90ms) in VDD and by 18 ± 24ms (17-50ms) in DDD operation. Individual echo AVD difference between both modes was 73 ± 20ms (30-100ms). Conclusion: The study demonstrates the value of in-vitro studies. It predicted QuickOpt deficiencies regarding IEGM amplitude dependent AVD proposals constrained to fixed individual differences between DDD and VDD mode. Consequently, in-vivo, the algorithm provided AVD of predominantly longer duration than echo in both modes. Accepting echo individualization as gold standard, QuickOpt should not be used alone to optimize AVD in CRT patients.…