Ventricular preexcitation modulates strain and attenuates cardiac remodeling in a swine model of myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial infarction modifies the distribution of stress within the heart, increasing wall stress in ischemic and surrounding tissue, which often leads to adverse left ventricular remodeling. Electrical preexcitation pacing with appropriate timing of high-stress regions can reduce local strain and may attenuate global remodeling. METHODS AND RESULTS: Myocardial infarction was induced in 24 swine to study the short-term (n=12) and long-term (n=12) effects of therapy. Sonomicrometry and hemodynamic measurements were used to show the mechanistic effects of preexcitation and to determine the optimal stimulation site and atrioventricular delay. Lagrangian strain was used to assess regional loading characteristics. Long-term study animals were randomized to 8 weeks of preexcitation (therapy) or no pacing (control). Echocardiograms were performed 2 days after myocardial infarction and repeated at 60 days, when tissue weights and apoptosis were assessed. Preexcitation reduced regional strain in the short term, with the best results achieved when the border region was paced at an atrioventricular delay of 50% of the intrinsic PR interval. In the long term, the changes in left ventricular internal diameter and left atrial size were decreased in therapy animals versus control animals (0.9+/-0.3 versus 1.5+/-0.5 cm, P=0.03, and 1.06+/-0.78 versus 2.32+/-0.88 cm, P<0.04, respectively). Heart weight was significantly lower in the therapy animals than in the control animals (319.8+/-20.8 versus 359.6+/-29.3 g, P=0.02). Although not significant, cardiomyocyte apoptosis trended lower in the therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Preexcitation of the left ventricle after myocardial infarction reduced strain and stroke work in the infarct and border regions in the short term and attenuated adverse ventricular remodeling in the long term.

Feasibility of biventricular pacing in patients with recent myocardial infarction: impact on ventricular remodeling.

To test the hypothesis that biventricular pacing after a myocardial infarction with reduced ejection fraction can attenuate left ventricular (LV) remodeling, the authors studied 18 patients (myocardial infarction within 30-45 days, ejection fraction

Intracardiac electrical bioimpedance as a basis for controlling of pacing rate limits.

Intracardiac impedance can provide real-time hemodynamic information to automatically control the lower and upper rate limits of a rate-adaptive pacemaker. It is necessary to overcome a number of technical challenges to accomplish this within the constraints of an implantable device.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy restores optimal atrioventricular mechanical timing in heart failure patients with ventricular conduction delay.

We characterized the relationship between systolic ventricular function and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) in patients with heart failure (HF) and baseline asynchrony during ventricular stimulation. The role of preload in the systolic performance improvement that can be obtained in HF patients with LV stimulation is uncertain.We measured the maximum rate of increase of LV pressure, LVEDP, aortic pulse pressure (PP) and the atrioventricular mechanical latency (AVL) between left atrial systole and LV pressure onset in 39 patients with HF. Two subgroups were identified: "responder" if PP improved, or "nonresponder."Maximum hemodynamic improvement occurred at an atrioventricular (AV) delay that did not decrease LVEDP. Left ventricular and biventricular (BV) stimulation increased systolic hemodynamics significantly, despite no significant increase in LVEDP. All parameters decreased when the LVEDP was decreased by shorter AV delay. Left ventricular and BV stimulation provided better hemodynamics than right ventricular (RV) stimulation. For the nonresponder subgroup, systolic hemodynamics only worsened during AV delay shortening. For the responder subgroup, optimum PP was achieved when AVL was near zero. Restoration of optimal left atrial-ventricular mechanical timing partly contributes to the hemodynamic improvements observed in this patient subgroup. However, preload alone cannot explain the differences seen between RV and BV stimulation and the contradictory PP decreases even at maximal preload in the nonresponder subgroup. These results may be explained by a site-dependent mechanism such as the degree of ventricular synchrony. Caution should be taken in these patients when optimizing AV delays using echocardiography techniques that focus on LV inflow.