User Manual Part 4

F-10
CLINICAL STUDY - SUMMARY OF CRT OPTIMIZ
ATION ALGORITHM VALIDATION STUDY
Table F-8. Differences between maximum achievable %AoVTI and that achieved with EEHF+ and Ritter
during atrial sensing
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
36, - 8.5 ± 8.3, (-11.2, -5.8) 36, -6.5 ± 5.6, (-8.3, -4.6) 36, 2.0 ± 9.1, (-0.9, -5.0)
0.1895
Table F-9. Differences between maximum achievable %AoVTI and that achieved with EEHF+ and Ritter
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
34, -6.8 ± 5.2, (-8.5, -5.0) 34, -10.4 ± 6.6, (-12.6,
-8.1)
34, -3.6 ± 9. 0, (-6.7, -0.6)
0.0255
CONCLUSIONS
The results of t he CRTAVO stu d y are summarized as follows:
• The algorithm recommended AV delays that maximized global contractile
function as measured by LV dP/d t.
• The EEHF+ algorithm recommended an AV delay that increased acute
hemodynamic responses in terms of %LV dP/dt
max
, as compared to fixed
AV delays of 100 ms, 120 ms, 140 ms or 160 ms.
• The EEHF+ algorithm recommended an AV delay that increased acute
hemodynamic responses in terms of %LV dP/dt
max
, as compared to AV
delay recom mended by Ritter method.
- DRAFT -