User Manual Part 4

F-8
CLINICAL STUDY - SUMMARY OF CRT OPTIMIZ
ATION ALGORITHM VALIDATION STUDY
Tab le F -5. 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 pacing (continued)
n, mean ± std, 95% CI n, mean ± std, 95% CI n, mean ± std, 95% C I
Paired t-test
EEHF+ AoVTI method
Paired difference
P-value
34, -2.0 ± 2.6, (-2.8, -1.1) 34, -2.8 ± 2.9, (-3.8, -1.8) 34, -0.9 ± 2.6, (-1.8, 0.0)
0.0617
AoVTI Results
There was a large variance in the difference in %AoVTI
max
achieved by all the
methods evaluated in this study, which is consistent with the inhe rent variability
of the AoVTI measurements
3
.
Comparison of EEHF+ recommended AV delay to fixed AV delays of 100
ms, 120 ms, 140 ms, and 160 ms in achieving AoVTI
max
• As shown in the tables below, there was a large variance in the difference
in %AoVTI
max
achieved by EEHF+ and the fixed AV delays for both atrial
sensing and pacing; the tables also provide further details about the
number of subjects, mean, standard deviation, p-value, and confidence
interval(TableF-6onpageF-8,TableF-7onpageF-9).
Tab le F-6. Differences between maximal ach ievab le %Ao VTI an d that achie ved usi ng the EEHF+ and a fixed
AV delay of 100 ms, 1 20 ms, 140 ms, and 160 ms during atrial sensing.
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
36, - 8.5 ± 8.3, (-11.2, -5.8) 36, -6.6 ± 5.7, (-8.4, -4.7) 36, 1.9 ± 9.5, (-1.2, 5.0)
0.2323
EEHF+ 120 ms
Paired difference
P-value
35, - 7.7 ± 7.0, (-10.0, -5.4) 35, - 5.1 ± 6.9, (-7.3, -2.8) 35, 2.7 ± 8.9, (-0.3, 5.6)
0.0837
EEHF+ 140 ms
Paired difference
P-value
36, - 8.5 ± 8.3, (-11.2, -5.8) 36, -6.1 ± 4.4, (-7.5, -4.6) 36, 2.4 ± 9.3, (-0.6, 5.5)
0.1296
3. Otto CM , Pearlman AS, Comess K, Reamer R , Janko C, Huntsman L. Determination of
the stenotic aortic valve a rea in adults using Dop pler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol
1986;7:509-17.
- DRAFT -