Comparison of early effects of right ventricular apical pacing on left ventricular functions in single and dual chamber pacemakers

ObjectivesTo assess differences in blood flow momentum (BFM) and kinetic energy (KE) dissipation in a model of cardiac dyssynchrony induced by electrical right ventricular apical (RVA) stimulation compared with spontaneous sinus rhythm.MethodsWe cross-sectionally enrolled 12 consecutive patients (mean age 74±8 years, 60% male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 58%±6 %), within 48 hours from pacemaker (PMK) implantation. Inclusion criteria were: age>18 years, no PMK-dependency, sinus rhythm with a spontaneous narrow QRS at the ECG, preserved ejection fraction (>50%) and a low percentage of PMK-stimulation (<20%). All the participants underwent a complete echocardiographic evaluation, including left ventricular strain analysis and particle image velocimetry.ResultsCompared with sinus rhythm, BFM shifted from 27±3.3 to 34±7.6° (p=0.016), while RVA-pacing was characterised by a 35% of increment in KE dissipation, during diastole (p=0.043) and 32% during systole (p=0.016). In the same conditions, left ventricle global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) significantly decreased from 17±3.3 to 11%±2.8% (p=0.004) during RVA-stimulation. At the multivariable analysis, BFM and diastolic KE dissipation were significantly associated with LV GLS deterioration (Beta Coeff.=0.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.00, p=0.034 and Beta Coeff.=0.29, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57, p=0.049, respectively).ConclusionsIn RVA-stimulation, BFM impairment and KE dissipation were found to be significantly associated with LV GLS deterioration, when controlling for potential confounders. Such changes may favour the onset of cardiac remodelling and sustain heart failure.

Download Full-text

Chronic Apical and Nonapical Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with High-Grade Atrioventricular Block: Results of the Right Pace Study

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2018/1404659 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2018 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Carmine Muto ◽

Valeria Calvi ◽

Giovanni Luca Botto ◽

Domenico Pecora ◽

Daniele Porcelli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Right Ventricular ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

X Rays ◽

Ventricular Pacing ◽

Dual Chamber ◽

Dual Chamber Pacemaker ◽

Right Ventricular Pacing ◽

The Right

Objective. The aim of the study was to compare the two approaches to chronic right ventricular pacing currently adopted in clinical practice: right ventricular apical (RVA) and non-RVA pacing. Background. Chronic RVA pacing is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, morbidity, and even mortality. Non-RVA pacing may yield more physiologic ventricular activation and provide potential long-term benefits and has recently been adopted as standard procedure at many implanting centers. Methods. The Right Pace study was a multicenter, prospective, single-blind, nonrandomized trial involving 437 patients indicated for dual-chamber pacemaker implantation with a high percentage of RV pacing. Results. RV lead-tip target location was the apex or the interventricular septum. RVA (274) and non-RVA patients (163) did not differ in baseline characteristics. During a median follow-up of 19 months (25th–75th percentiles, 13–25), 17 patients died. The rates of the primary outcome of death due to any cause or hospitalization for heart failure were comparable between the groups (log-rank test, p=0.609), as were the rates of the composite of death due to any cause, hospitalization for heart failure, or an increase in left ventricular end-systolic volume ≥ 15% as compared with the baseline evaluation (secondary outcome, p=0.703). After central adjudication of X-rays, comparison between adjudicated RVA (239 patients) and non-RVA (170 patients) confirmed the absence of difference in the rates of primary (p=0.402) and secondary (p=0.941) outcome. Conclusions. In patients with indications for dual-chamber pacemaker who require a high percentage of ventricular stimulation, RVA or non-RVA pacing resulted in comparable outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01647490).

Download Full-text