289
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Article

Ventricular electrical delay as a predictor of arrhythmias in patients with cardiac resynchronization implantable cardioverter defibrillator

ORCID Icon, , ORCID Icon, &
Pages 356-361 | Received 04 May 2018, Accepted 14 Dec 2018, Published online: 22 Jan 2019

Figures & data

Table 1. Patient characteristics (n = 69).

Figure 1. Association of corrected LV lead electrical delay (cQLV) with arrhythmic events among CRT recipients. Figure 1A: cQLV in patients with atria tachycardia/supraventricular tachycardia (AT/SVT) events compared to patients without AT/SVT events (43.4 ± 22% vs. 60.3 ± 26.7%, p = .006.); Figure 1B: cQLV in patients with ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) events compared to patients without VT/VF events (46.2 ± 25.4% vs. 56 ± 25.7%, p = .13).

Figure 1. Association of corrected LV lead electrical delay (cQLV) with arrhythmic events among CRT recipients. Figure 1A: cQLV in patients with atria tachycardia/supraventricular tachycardia (AT/SVT) events compared to patients without AT/SVT events (43.4 ± 22% vs. 60.3 ± 26.7%, p = .006.); Figure 1B: cQLV in patients with ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) events compared to patients without VT/VF events (46.2 ± 25.4% vs. 56 ± 25.7%, p = .13).

Figure 2. Association of corrected LV lead electrical delay (cQLV) with new onset arrhythmic events among CRT recipients. Figure 2A: cQLV in patients with new onset atria tachycardia/supraventricular tachycardia (AT/SVT) events compared to patients without new onset AT/SVT events (38.3 ± 22.2% vs. 55.7 ± 25.7%, p = .028); Figure 2B: cQLV in patients with new onset ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) events compared to patients without new onset VT/VF events (44.2 ± 25.2% vs. 56.3 ± 25.5%, p = .069).

Figure 2. Association of corrected LV lead electrical delay (cQLV) with new onset arrhythmic events among CRT recipients. Figure 2A: cQLV in patients with new onset atria tachycardia/supraventricular tachycardia (AT/SVT) events compared to patients without new onset AT/SVT events (38.3 ± 22.2% vs. 55.7 ± 25.7%, p = .028); Figure 2B: cQLV in patients with new onset ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) events compared to patients without new onset VT/VF events (44.2 ± 25.2% vs. 56.3 ± 25.5%, p = .069).

Table 2. Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with and without arrhythmic events.

Table 3. Odds ratios for arrhythmic events.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.