User Manual Part 4

CLINICAL STUDY - SUMMARY OF CRT OPTIMIZ
ATION ALGORITHM VALIDATION STUDY
F-7
Differences between % LV dP/dt
max
achieved with EEHF + and with two echo-based me thods: the
Ritter method a nd the AoVTI method for atrial sensing (left) and atrial pa cing (right). A negative
value indicates that EEH F+ was better. The box represents the mean and error bars represent
95% CI of mean.
Figure F-3. Differences, achieve d with E EHF+ and echo-based methods
Tab le F -4. Differenc es b etw een maximal achievable %LV dP/dt max and that achieved from the EEHF+, the
Ritter method, and the AoVTI method during atrial sensin g
n, mean ± std, 95% CI n, mean ± std, 95% CI n, mean ± std, 95% C I
Paired t-test
EEHF+ Ritter method
Paired difference
P-value
35, -1.3 ± 1.3, (-1.7, -0.8) 35, -2.5 ± 2.7, (-3.3, -1.6) 3 5, -1.2 ± 3.0, (-2.1, -0.2)
0.0259
EEHF+ AoVTI method
Paired difference
P-value
33, -1.3 ± 1.3, (-1.8, -0.8) 33, -1.7 ± 1.9, (-2.3, -1.0) 33, -0.4 ± 1.6, (-0.9, 0.2)
0.2036
Tab le F -5. Differenc es b etw een maximal achievable %LV dP/dt max and that achieved from the EEHF+, the
Ritter method, a nd the AoVTI method during atrial pacing
n, mean ± std, 95% CI n, mean ± std, 95% CI n, mean ± std, 95% C I
Paired t-test
EEHF+ Ritter method
Paired difference
P-value
33, -2.0 ± 2.7, (-2.9, -1.1) 33, -7.4 ± 5.5, (-9.3, -5.5) 3 3, -5.4 ± 5.1, (-7.2, -3.7)
< 0.0001
- DRAFT -