QuickOpt® Timing Cycle Optimization

Essential. Efficient. Effective. Complete Timing Cycle Optimization in About a Minute.

The programming of appropriate AV and VV delays (timing cycle optimization) has shown to be effective at improving patient outcomes by increasing cardiac output and reducing non-responder rates.1-11 QuickOpt timing provides a quick effective alternative to time-consuming echocardiography procedures.

QuickOpt® Timing Cycle Optimization 

Features & Benefits

Essential

Clinical evidence demonstrates that timing cycle optimization improves outcomes to CRT therapy:

  • In an analysis of 11 separately published studies, 440 out of 550 patients (80%) showed statistically significant improvement in markers including quality of life score (QoP), NYHA class improvement, and reduction in non-responder rates, resulting from sequential biventricular pacing over simultaneous pacing.1-11

Clinical evidence also demonstrates that optimal delays change over time, so regular optimization is necessary.12

Efficient

QuickOpt optimization:

  • Optimizes AV, PV, and VV intervals in about a minute at the push of a button.
  • May reduce or eliminate the need for echocardiography-based optimization.
  • Allows optimization of both non-responders and responders.
  • Allows frequent optimization in response to changing timing cycles.
  • Is featured in all St. Jude Medical multi-chamber ICDs (DR & HF) and St. Jude Medical’s Frontier II CRT-P.

Echocardiography-based optimization is:

  • Time-consuming.
  • Impractical for optimizing all patients.
  • Typically reserved only for non-responders to CRT therapy.

QuickOpt optimization runs an automatic sequence of IEGM (intracardiac electrogram) measurements and displays optimal AV and VV Delay results in 90 seconds.

Effective

QuickOpt optimization is clinically proven to correlate with echo-based methods:

  • 99% correlation in prospective 11-patient pilot study presented at Cardiostim 2004.13
  • 98% correlation in retrospective 61-patient study presented at HRS 2006.14
  • 97% correlation in prospective clinical trial with 115 patients presented at Cardiostim 2006.15

1 Chan et al. Tissue Doppler guided optimization of A-V and V-V delay of biventricular pacemaker improves response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure patients. J of Cardiac Failure 2004; 10, 4 (suppl.): S72 (abstract 199).

2 Bordachar et al. Echocardiographic parameters of ventricular dyssynchrony validation in patients with heart failure using sequential biventricular pacing. JACC 2004; 44 (11): 2157-2165.

3 Vanderheyden et al. Tailored echocardiographic interventricular delay programming further optimizes left ventricular performance after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm 2005l; 10:1066-1072.

4 VanGelder et al. Effect of optimizing the VV interval on left ventricular contractility in cardiac resynchronization therapy. American Journal of Cardiology 2004; 93:1500-1503.

5 Sogaard et al. Sequential versus simultaneous biventricular resynchronization for severe heart failure: evaluation by tissue Doppler imaging. Circulation 2002; 106:2078-2084.

6 Rosanio et al. Non-simultaneous pacing of the right and left ventricles for heart failure: is it worth it? AHA Abstract: 1618 (2003) AHA 76th Scientific Sessions, Orlando, Nov. 9-12, 2003.

7 O’Cochlain et al. The effect of variation in the interval between right and left ventricular activation on paced QRS duration. PACE 2001; 24:1780-1782.

8 Perego et al. Simultaneous vs. sequential biventricular pacing in dilated cardiomyopathy: an acute hemodynamic study. The European Journal of Heart Failure 2003; 5:305-313.

9 Bracke et al. Importance of interventricular delay to optimize cardiac resynchronization therapy. JACC 41: (2003) ACC 52nd Annual Scientific Sessions March 30-April 2nd, 2003, Chicago.

10 Mortenson et al. Sequential biventricular pacing: evaluation of safety and efficacy. PACE 2004; 27:339-345.

11 Leon et al. Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with sequential biventricular pacing on Doppler-derived left ventricular stroke volume, functional status and exercise capacity in patients with ventricular dysfunction and conduction delay. PACE 25: 141 (2002) NASPE 23rd Annual Scientific Sessions, May 8-11, 2002, San Diego.

12 O’Donnell, et al. “Long-Term Variations in Optimal Programming of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices” PACE Vol 28, Supp S24-S26 (Jan 2005).

13 Meine et al. IEGM-based method for estimating optimal VV delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace Supplements, Vol. 6, June 2004 (#149/2).

14 Meine et al. An intracardiac EGM method for VV optimization during cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm Journal 3 (5) May 2006 [abstract AB30-5].

15 Porterfield et al. Device based intracardiac delay optimization vs. echo in ICD patients (acute IEGM AV/PV and VV study). Europace Vol 8 Supp 1 July 2006 [abstract #6178].

Clinical Information

Safety & Indications

Caution: Federal law (USA) restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a physician.

Please see the physician’s manual for appropriate devices for indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions and potential adverse events.

Product Comparison

Reimbursement Information

Product Components

Demonstration Video

Technical Specifications

Request More Information

For more information on the  QuickOpt® Timing Cycle Optimization  product or to place an order, provide your contact information below and a sales representative dedicated to your region will contact you.

Name*  
Email*   
 
Hospital/Affiliation