Volume 37, Issue 5 pp. 1374-1376
ECG FOR STUDENTS & ASSOC. PROFESSIONALS
Open Access

Loss of left ventricular component of biventricular pacing with low atrial rhythm, what is the mechanism?

Saurabh A. Deshpande MD, DNB, DM Cardiology

Corresponding Author

Saurabh A. Deshpande MD, DNB, DM Cardiology

Cardiac Electrophysiology, Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, Bangalore, India

Correspondence

Saurabh Ajit Deshpande, Cardiac Electrophysiology, Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, Bangalore, India.

Email : [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Ameya Udyavar MD, DM, DNB Cardiology

Ameya Udyavar MD, DM, DNB Cardiology

P D Hinduja Hospital, Mumbai, India

Search for more papers by this author
Muni V. Reddy DNB Medicine, DNB Cardiology

Muni V. Reddy DNB Medicine, DNB Cardiology

Jag Jivan Ram Western Railway Hospital, Mumbai, India

Search for more papers by this author
Shishir K. Roul DNB Medicine, DNB Cardiology

Shishir K. Roul DNB Medicine, DNB Cardiology

Jag Jivan Ram Western Railway Hospital, Mumbai, India

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 17 August 2021

Graphical Abstract

Effective biventricular pacing is important to improve survival in patients with heart failure. We report a case of a patient with heart failure, who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy, who had loss of biventricular pacing when in low atrial rhythm. We discuss the probable mechanism for the same.

Abbreviations

  • AV
  • Atrioventricular
  • CRT - D
  • Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with Defibrillation
  • ECG
  • Electrocardiogram
  • LBBB
  • Left Bundle Branch Block
  • LV
  • Left Ventricular
  • LVEF
  • Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction
  • PAV
  • Paced Atrioventricular Delay
  • RV
  • Right Ventricle
  • SAV
  • Sensed Atrioventricular Delay
  • 1 INTRODUCTION

    Effective biventricular pacing is important to improve survival in patients with heart failure 1. We report a case of a patient with heart failure, who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy, who had a loss of left ventricular (LV) component of biventricular pacing when in low atrial rhythm. We discuss the probable mechanism for the same.

    2 CASE DESCRIPTION

    A 66-year-old male, hypertensive with old ischemic heart disease and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF 33%) with left bundle branch block on the ECG (QRS duration 160ms), underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D—Rivacor 7 HF-T QP from Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) for symptomatic heart failure. The device was programmed with a sensed atrio-ventricular (AV) delay of 80 ms and a Paced AV delay of 100 ms and Auto-ADAPT being OFF. The LV-RV offset with -20 ms with LV programmed to be paced 20 ms before right ventricle (RV). It was noticed that there was a loss of the left ventricular component of the biventricular pacing (loss of R wave in lead V1) on the ECG done on day 1 post-procedure (Figure 1). A repeat ECG done later, without any changes in the device programming, showed normal sinus rhythm with left ventricular pacing occurring during biventricular pacing (presence of R in lead V1). The first ECG (Figure 1) shows inverted p waves in the inferior leads II, III, aVF. This indicates the origin of the beat may be originating in the low right atrium. So, it can be assumed that low atrial rhythm has caused the loss of the R wave / the left ventricular component of biventricular pacing which is important to occur to correct dyssynchrony. This finding was corroborated by intracardiac electrograms (Figure 2).

    Details are in the caption following the image
    ECG—A. baseline (with CRT off) B. low atrial rhythm C. normal sinus rhythm
    Details are in the caption following the image
    Intracardiac electrograms A. baseline (with CRT off) B. atrial sensed biventricular paced
    This can be explained by
    1. The beat originating in the low atrium has to travel to the right atrial appendage to get sensed. That causes a delay in the sensing in the atrial lead and subsequent delay in the activation of the atrioventricular timing cycle. Due to its spatial closeness to the atrioventricular (AV) junction, native electrical impulse reaches early at the AV node and excites the native conduction system before the paced beats are delivered to the ventricles. It is evident by the lower PR interval in low atrial rhythm (120 ms, as against 140 ms in normal sinus rhythm). This results in a left bundle branch block (LBBB) pattern on the ECG (native AV conduction) and pseudo-fusion due to delayed delivery of ventricular impulse by CRT. This leads to loss of left ventricular pre-excitation and loss of effective biventricular synchrony (Figure 3).
    2. Native sinus beats result is near-simultaneous activation of the right and left atria. The low atrial beat takes time to reach the interatrial connections 2. So, there is a delay in the activation of the left atrium with low atrial rhythm. This may lead to mechanical dyssynchrony between the left atrium and ventricle.
    Details are in the caption following the image
    Fusion of intrinsic conduction and biventricular pacing-beat originating in the low atrium

    Since the low atrial rhythm was a transient phenomenon, it did not cause any hemodynamic problems in the patient. Effective biventricular pacing with LV capture is important to improve the ejection fraction in the long run in patients with heart failure 3. So, it is important to ensure effective and optimum biventricular pacing during the follow up of patients who have undergone cardiac resynchronization therapy

    3 LEARNING POINTS

    In the case of biventricular pacing, it is important to maintain atrioventricular synchrony to get the desired clinical benefit. In our case, the development of low atrial rhythm led to a loss of the LV component of the biventricular pacing.

    4 CONSENT

    Informed consent has been obtained from the patient and all the identifiers have been removed from the images as per the guidelines.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The authors declare no Conflict of Interest for this article.

      The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.