User Manual Part 4

CLINICAL STUDY - SUMMARY OF CRT OPTIMIZ
ATION ALGORITHM VALIDATION STUDY
F-5
Differences between %LV dP/dt
max
achieved with EEHF+ and with fixed AV delays of 100 ms, 120
ms, 140 ms or 160 ms f or atrial sensing (left) and atrial pacing (right). A negative value indicates
that the EEHF + algorithm is better. The box represents the mea n and error bars repre sent 95%
CI of mean.
Figure F-2. Differences, achieved with EEHF+ an d fixed AV delays
Table F-2. Differences between maximal achievable %LV dP/dt max and that achieved using EEHF+ and a
fixed AV delay of 100 ms, 120 ms, 140 ms and 160 ms, during atrial sen sing
n, mean ± std, 95% CI n, mean ± std, 95% CI n, mean ± std, 95% C I
Paired t-test
EEHF+ 100 ms
Paired difference
P-value
38, -1.2 ± 1.3, (-1.6, -0.8) 38, -2.7 ± 2.9, (-3.6, -1.8) 3 8, -1.4 ± 2.8, (-2.3, -0.6)
0.0025
EEHF+ 120 ms
Paired difference
P-value
38, -1.2 ± 1.3, (-1.6, -0.8) 38, -2.2 ± 2.2, (-2.9, -1.5) 3 8, -1.0 ± 2.3, (-1.7, -0.2)
0.0130
EEHF+ 140 ms
Paired difference
P-value
36, -1.3 ± 1.3, (-1.7, -0.8) 36, -2.1 ± 2.0, (-2.8, -1.5) 3 6, -0.9 ± 2.3, (-1.6, -0.1)
0.0279
- DRAFT -