Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2146841202> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 50 of
50
with 100 items per page.
- W2146841202 endingPage "iii21" @default.
- W2146841202 startingPage "iii21" @default.
- W2146841202 abstract "Background: Manufacturers have each implemented manufacturer specific methods for electrogram based optimization of AV delay in CRT devices. Agreement between manufacturer algorithms has never been formally tested. Where the algorithms are fully published and available, we tested agreement between different device based AV optimisation scheme, and compared this to the AV optimum selected using non-invasive haemodynamic optimisation.Method & Results: Twenty two patients undergoing haemodynamic AV optimization as part of the British Randomized AV optimization trial (BRAVO) had the AV optimum calculated according to published algorithms for QuickOptTM (St Jude Medical), Adaptive CRT (aCRT, Medtronic), and ExpertEase for Heart Failure+(EEHF+, Boston Scientific). Agreement between the haemodynamic optimum and electrograms optima was poor (versus QuickOpt R2=0.001, p=0.9; versus aCRT R2= 0.031, p=0.43; versus EEHF+R2=0.039, p=0.39). Agreement between the different electrogram based optima was also poor (QuickOpt versus EEHF+R2=0.01, p=0.65; QuickOpt versus aCRT R2=0.001, p=0.45; aCRT versus EEHF+R2=0, p=0.64, p<0.001). While there was a correlation between the AV optimum selected by Adaptive CRT, and EEHF+, the optimum selected using aCRT was systematically longer with the aCRT optimum on average 20ms longer (p=0.02). These findings were replicated for both sensed and paced AV delays.Conclusion: Different manufacturers' electrogram methods are substantially contradictory. None has impressive agreement with a reproducible method for haemodynamic AV optimisation. These curious data warrant further, independent, exploration since manufacturer electrogram methods are widely used by clinicians assuming them to have a physiological basis, perhaps incorrectly.![Graphic][1] Figure AV optima (ms) selected using the different electrogram based optimisation schemes are compared to each other and to the AV optimum selected by non-invasive haemodynamic optimisation. [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif" @default.
- W2146841202 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2146841202 creator A5006260071 @default.
- W2146841202 creator A5012750993 @default.
- W2146841202 creator A5024504831 @default.
- W2146841202 creator A5033345114 @default.
- W2146841202 creator A5044181681 @default.
- W2146841202 creator A5053886100 @default.
- W2146841202 creator A5069459878 @default.
- W2146841202 date "2014-10-01" @default.
- W2146841202 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
- W2146841202 title "55 * Testing the validity of electrogram based AV optimization schemes using real world patient data" @default.
- W2146841202 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu241.5" @default.
- W2146841202 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
- W2146841202 type Work @default.
- W2146841202 sameAs 2146841202 @default.
- W2146841202 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2146841202 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2146841202 hasAuthorship W2146841202A5006260071 @default.
- W2146841202 hasAuthorship W2146841202A5012750993 @default.
- W2146841202 hasAuthorship W2146841202A5024504831 @default.
- W2146841202 hasAuthorship W2146841202A5033345114 @default.
- W2146841202 hasAuthorship W2146841202A5044181681 @default.
- W2146841202 hasAuthorship W2146841202A5053886100 @default.
- W2146841202 hasAuthorship W2146841202A5069459878 @default.
- W2146841202 hasBestOaLocation W21468412021 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConcept C178853913 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConceptScore W2146841202C11413529 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConceptScore W2146841202C164705383 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConceptScore W2146841202C178853913 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConceptScore W2146841202C33923547 @default.
- W2146841202 hasConceptScore W2146841202C71924100 @default.
- W2146841202 hasIssue "suppl 3" @default.
- W2146841202 hasLocation W21468412021 @default.
- W2146841202 hasOpenAccess W2146841202 @default.
- W2146841202 hasPrimaryLocation W21468412021 @default.
- W2146841202 hasRelatedWork W1110300601 @default.
- W2146841202 hasRelatedWork W1550116050 @default.
- W2146841202 hasRelatedWork W2070480310 @default.
- W2146841202 hasVolume "16" @default.
- W2146841202 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2146841202 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2146841202 magId "2146841202" @default.
- W2146841202 workType "article" @default.
!["Background: Manufacturers have each implemented manufacturer specific methods for electrogram based optimization of AV delay in CRT devices. Agreement between manufacturer algorithms has never been formally tested. Where the algorithms are fully published and available, we tested agreement between different device based AV optimisation scheme, and compared this to the AV optimum selected using non-invasive haemodynamic optimisation.Method & Results: Twenty two patients undergoing haemodynamic AV optimization as part of the British Randomized AV optimization trial (BRAVO) had the AV optimum calculated according to published algorithms for QuickOptTM (St Jude Medical), Adaptive CRT (aCRT, Medtronic), and ExpertEase for Heart Failure+(EEHF+, Boston Scientific). Agreement between the haemodynamic optimum and electrograms optima was poor (versus QuickOpt R2=0.001, p=0.9; versus aCRT R2= 0.031, p=0.43; versus EEHF+R2=0.039, p=0.39). Agreement between the different electrogram based optima was also poor (QuickOpt versus EEHF+R2=0.01, p=0.65; QuickOpt versus aCRT R2=0.001, p=0.45; aCRT versus EEHF+R2=0, p=0.64, p<0.001). While there was a correlation between the AV optimum selected by Adaptive CRT, and EEHF+, the optimum selected using aCRT was systematically longer with the aCRT optimum on average 20ms longer (p=0.02). These findings were replicated for both sensed and paced AV delays.Conclusion: Different manufacturers' electrogram methods are substantially contradictory. None has impressive agreement with a reproducible method for haemodynamic AV optimisation. These curious data warrant further, independent, exploration since manufacturer electrogram methods are widely used by clinicians assuming them to have a physiological basis, perhaps incorrectly.![Graphic][1] Figure AV optima (ms) selected using the different electrogram based optimisation schemes are compared to each other and to the AV optimum selected by non-invasive haemodynamic optimisation. [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif"](?object=%22Background%3A%20Manufacturers%20have%20each%20implemented%20manufacturer%20specific%20methods%20for%20electrogram%20based%20optimization%20of%20AV%20delay%20in%20CRT%20devices.%20Agreement%20between%20manufacturer%20algorithms%20has%20never%20been%20formally%20tested.%20Where%20the%20algorithms%20are%20fully%20published%20and%20available%2C%20we%20tested%20agreement%20between%20different%20device%20based%20AV%20optimisation%20scheme%2C%20and%20compared%20this%20to%20the%20AV%20optimum%20selected%20using%20non-invasive%20haemodynamic%20optimisation.Method%20%26%20Results%3A%20Twenty%20two%20patients%20undergoing%20haemodynamic%20AV%20optimization%20as%20part%20of%20the%20British%20Randomized%20AV%20optimization%20trial%20(BRAVO)%20had%20the%20AV%20optimum%20calculated%20according%20to%20published%20algorithms%20for%20QuickOptTM%20(St%20Jude%20Medical)%2C%20Adaptive%20CRT%20(aCRT%2C%20Medtronic)%2C%20and%20ExpertEase%20for%20Heart%20Failure%2B(EEHF%2B%2C%20Boston%20Scientific).%20Agreement%20between%20the%20haemodynamic%20optimum%20and%20electrograms%20optima%20was%20poor%20(versus%20QuickOpt%20R2%3D0.001%2C%20p%3D0.9%3B%20versus%20aCRT%20R2%3D%200.031%2C%20p%3D0.43%3B%20versus%20EEHF%2BR2%3D0.039%2C%20p%3D0.39).%20Agreement%20between%20the%20different%20electrogram%20based%20optima%20was%20also%20poor%20(QuickOpt%20versus%20EEHF%2BR2%3D0.01%2C%20p%3D0.65%3B%20QuickOpt%20versus%20aCRT%20R2%3D0.001%2C%20p%3D0.45%3B%20aCRT%20versus%20EEHF%2BR2%3D0%2C%20p%3D0.64%2C%20p%3C0.001).%20While%20there%20was%20a%20correlation%20between%20the%20AV%20optimum%20selected%20by%20Adaptive%20CRT%2C%20and%20EEHF%2B%2C%20the%20optimum%20selected%20using%20aCRT%20was%20systematically%20longer%20with%20the%20aCRT%20optimum%20on%20average%2020ms%20longer%20(p%3D0.02).%20These%20findings%20were%20replicated%20for%20both%20sensed%20and%20paced%20AV%20delays.Conclusion%3A%20Different%20manufacturers'%20electrogram%20methods%20are%20substantially%20contradictory.%20None%20has%20impressive%20agreement%20with%20a%20reproducible%20method%20for%20haemodynamic%20AV%20optimisation.%20These%20curious%20data%20warrant%20further%2C%20independent%2C%20exploration%20since%20manufacturer%20electrogram%20methods%20are%20widely%20used%20by%20clinicians%20assuming%20them%20to%20have%20a%20physiological%20basis%2C%20perhaps%20incorrectly.!%5BGraphic%5D%5B1%5D%20Figure%20AV%20optima%20(ms)%20selected%20using%20the%20different%20electrogram%20based%20optimisation%20schemes%20are%20compared%20to%20each%20other%20and%20to%20the%20AV%20optimum%20selected%20by%20non-invasive%20haemodynamic%20optimisation.%20%5B1%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-1.gif%22){kind=link}