862Syncav with multipoint pacing improves acute left ventricular hemodynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Abbott Introduction SyncAV has been shown to improve electrical synchronization by automatically adjusting atrioventricular delay (AVD) according to the intrinsic atrioventricular conduction time. Additional incremental electrical synchronization may be gained by the addition of second left ventricular (LV) pulse with MultiPoint Pacing (MPP). While the electrical synchronization benefits of SyncAV have been previously explored, there has been no assessment of the acute hemodynamic impact of SyncAV with or without MPP. Objective Evaluate the acute LV hemodynamic impact of SyncAV with and without MPP. Methods Heart failure patients with LBBB and QRS duration (QRSd) > 140 ms undergoing CRT-P/D implant with a quadripolar LV lead were enrolled in this prospective study. A guidewire or catheter with pressure transducer was placed in the LV chamber and the maximum pressure change (dP/dtmax) was recorded during the following pacing modes: intrinsic conduction, conventional biventricular pacing with SyncAV (BiV + SyncAV), and MPP with SyncAV (MPP + SyncAV). Twelve-lead surface ECG was used to determine the patient-tailored SyncAV offset that minimized QRSd. Results Twenty-seven patients (67% male, 44% ischemic, 30 ± 7% ejection fraction) completed the acute recordings. Relative to the intrinsic QRSd of 163 ms, BiV + SyncAV reduced QRSd by 21.5% to 124 ms (p < 0.001 vs. intrinsic) and MPP + SyncAV reduced QRSd by 26.6% to 120 ms (p < 0.05 vs. BiV + SyncAV). Beyond electrical synchronization, SyncAV significantly improved acute hemodynamics. Relative to the intrinsic dP/dtmax of 842 mmHg/s, BiV + SyncAV elevated dP/dtmax by 6.3% to 900 mmHg/s (p < 0.001 vs. intrinsic) and MPP + SyncAV elevated dP/dtmax by 8.8% to 926 mmHg/s (p < 0.005 vs. BiV + SyncAV). Despite both QRSd and dP/dtmax improvement with SyncAV and MPP, correlation between electrical and hemodynamic measurements was poor (R2 = 0.0 for BiV + SyncAV, R2 = 0.1 for MPP + SyncAV). Conclusion SyncAV may significantly improve acute LV hemodynamics in addition to electrical synchrony in LBBB patients. Further incremental improvement was achieved by combining SyncAV with MPP. Abstract Figure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".