302 Impact of right ventricular pacing in patients with TAVI underwent permanent pacemaker implantation: the Pace-TAVI International Multicentre Study

Abstract Aims Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a relevant issue, being more frequent than after surgery and the progressive shift towards low-risk patients stressed the importance to reduce the risk of complications that could impact patient’s long-term prognosis. Long-term right ventricular pacing has been related to an increased risk of electromechanical asynchrony, negative left-ventricular remodelling, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, but there is a lack of evidence regarding the prognostic impact on TAVI patients. The aim of this international multicentre study is to assess the impact of right ventricular pacing on prognosis of TAVI patients undergone pacemaker implantation after the procedure due to conduction disorders. Methods and results All the consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVI and subsequently underwent pacemaker implantation in each participating centre were enrolled. Patients were divided into two subgroups according to the percentage of ventricular pacing (VP cut-off: 40%) at pacemaker interrogation. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for heart failure in subgroups based on the percentage of ventricular stimulation. All cause and cardiovascular mortality in the subgroups according to the percentage of ventricular pacing were the secondary endpoints. In total, 427 patients were enrolled, 153 patients with VP < 40% and 274 with a with VP ≥ 40%. Patients with VP ≥ 40% were older (81.16 ± 6.4 years vs. 80.51 ± 6.8 years), with higher NYHA class, a lower EF (55.26 ± 12.2 vs. 57.99 ± 11.3 P = 0.03), an increased end diastolic ventricular volume (112.11 ± 47.6 vs. 96.60 ± 40.4, P = 0.005) and diameter (48.89 ± 9.7 vs. 45.84 ± 7.5 P = 0.01). A higher incidence of moderate post-procedural paravalvular leak was observed in patients with VP ≥ 40% (37.5% vs. 26.85%, P = 0.03). Ventricular pacing ≥40% was associated with a higher incidence of the composite primary endpoint of CV mortality and HF hospitalization (p at log rank test = 0.006, adjusted HR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.03–5.6; P = 0.04). Patients with ventricular pacing ≥ 40% had also a higher risk of all-cause (p at log rank test = 0.03, adjusted HR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.03–2.38; P = 0.03) and cardiovascular (p at log ank test =0.008, adjusted HR: 3.77; CI: 1.32–10.78; P = 0.006) mortality compared to patients with a VP < 40%. Conclusions TAVI Patients underwent permanent pacemaker implantation after the procedure due to conduction disorders and with a VP ≥ 40% at follow-up are at increased risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations and of all-cause mortality compared to patients with a VP < 40%. It is mandatory to reduce the percentage of ventricular pacing at follow-up when possible or consider left ventricular branch pacing and biventricular pacing in TAVI patients.

Download Full-text

Understanding Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy: a mini review

Qanun Medika - Medical Journal Faculty of Medicine Muhammadiyah Surabaya ◽

10.30651/jqm.v5i2.6036 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Sidhi Laksono Purwowiyoto ◽

Reynaldo Halomoan Siregar ◽

Steven Philip Surya

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Function ◽

Right Ventricular ◽

Sinus Node ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Left Ventricular Ejection ◽

Preventive Strategy ◽

Ventricular Pacing ◽

Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽

Right Ventricular Pacing

Patients with total atrioventricular block or sinus node dysfunction will need pacemaker implantation to improve the physiologic function of the heart. It is known that chronic pacing such as right ventricular pacing could deteriorate the cardiac function (decreased left ventricular ejection fraction) due to dyssynchrony. This condition is knows as pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). The incidence of PICM could reach 19.5% during 3 years follow-up. The right ventricle is one of the locations for implantation. Chronic right ventricular pacing may cause interventricular dyssynchrony and disrupt the contraction mechanism in the heart. These will lead to cardiac remodeling and eventually impair the left ventricular function. Therapy is needed in patients with PICM to improve the symptoms and maintain the cardiac function. This article will further highlight the definition, mechanism, risk factor, treatment and preventive strategy for patients with PICM.

Download Full-text

P1676Global longitudinal strain improve prediction of right ventricular pacing induced left ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with permanent pacemaker

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehx502.p1676 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 38 (suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

S.J. Ha ◽

Y.J. Song ◽

W.K. Lee ◽

W.D. Bang ◽

S.Y. Yoo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Right Ventricular ◽

Longitudinal Strain ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Permanent Pacemaker ◽

Left Ventricular Dyssynchrony ◽

Ventricular Pacing ◽

Right Ventricular Pacing ◽

Ventricular Dyssynchrony

Download Full-text

Predictors of Right ventricular Pacing induced Left Ventricular dysfunction in Pacemaker Recipients with Preserved Ejection Fraction

QJM ◽

10.1093/qjmed/hcab090.020 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Mohamed Abdelmohsen Sayed ◽

Emad Effat ◽

Haitham Badran ◽

Said Khaled

Keyword(s):

Ejection Fraction ◽

Right Ventricular ◽

Left Ventricular Dysfunction ◽

Ventricular Dysfunction ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Left Ventricular Ejection ◽

Ventricular Pacing ◽

Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽

Right Ventricular Pacing

Abstract Background Pacemaker (PM) has been an effective treatment in the management of patients with brady-arrhythmias. Chronic RV pacing may cause electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony which lead finally to reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This deterioration of LVEF has been defined as pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). The incidence of PICM was described by many studies and ranged between 10% to 26%. The predictors for PICM have not been well studied. These studies were limited by variation in follow-up period and definition of PICM. Objective to study the incidence and predictors of PICM in patients who underwent pacemaker implantation in Ain shams University hospital. Patients and Methods This retrospective study included 160 patients who underwent single or dual chamber pacemaker implantation in Ain shams university hospital between 2010 and 2017 with the mean period 4.7±2.0 years. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients were excluded. Individuals who had baseline transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) with normal LVEF ≥ 50% before implantation were included. Results This study included 160 patients who had single or dual chamber pacemaker implantation between 2010 and 2017. 45% were males and 55% were females, mean age was 55.5 years. It showed that the incidence of PICM is 7.5%. Wider native QRS durations, particularly >140 ms (p < 0.001), wider pQRS duration >150 ms (p < 0.001), Low normal ejection fraction <56 % preimplantation (p = 0.023) and increased LVEDD>53 mm and LVESD>38 mm (p < 0.001) are predictors for the development of PICM. Female gender was independent predictor for PICM (p = 0.058). There was no association between burden of right ventricular pacing (p = 0.782) or pacing site (p = 0.876) with the risk of development of left ventricular dysfunction. Conclusion The incidence of right ventricular pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction is not uncommon, with an observed incidence of 7.5% in the current study. Wider native and paced QRS durations, Low normal ejection fraction (< 56 %) pre-implantation and increased LVEDD /LVESD post implantation are the most important predictors for the development of PICM. List of abbreviations PM= pacemaker, RV= Right ventricle, PICM = pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy, TTE= transthoracic echocardiography, DM= Diabetes Mellitus, HTN= Hypertension, BMI= Body Mass index, pQRSd= Paced QRS duration, SWMA= segmental wall motion abnormality, AF= Atrial fibrillation, SSS= Sick sinus syndrome, CHB= Complete heart block, AVB= Atrioventricular block, LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEDD= Left ventricular end diastolic diameter, LVESD= Left ventricular end systolic diameter, ms= milli second.

Download Full-text

The pacemaker ventricular lead position and outcomes in patients upgrading to crt

EP Europace ◽

10.1093/europace/euab116.452 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽

Author(s):

BV Silva ◽

J Brito ◽

T Rodrigues ◽

P Silverio Antonio ◽

S Couto Pereira ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Ejection Fraction ◽

Right Ventricular ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Left Ventricular Ejection ◽

Ventricular Pacing ◽

Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽

Right Ventricular Pacing ◽

Ventricular Lead

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Adverse hemodynamic effects of right ventricular pacing are known, and the optimal right ventricular lead position is still being a matter of debate. According to the guidelines, upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recommended in patients with indication for pacemaker and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% or who need more than 40% of ventricular pacing. Purpose To compare clinical outcomes and ejection fraction in patients with previous pacemaker (apical versus septal right ventricular pacing) who are upgrated to CRT. Methods Single-center retrospective study of 94 consecutive patients who had previous pacemaker and upgraded to CRT over a 4-year period. Of these patients, 64 had previous apical lead pacemaker and 30 had previous septal lead pacemaker. Data on comorbidities, New York Heart Association (NYHA), left ventricular ejection fraction and hospitalizations due to heart failure were collected. The results were obtained using Chi-square, Mann-Whitney and t-test. Results Patients with septal pacemaker had significantly more diabetes (p = 0.04) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.01), tended to be more symptomatic (p = 0.198) and had more days of hospitalization before and after pacemaker implantation (12 ± 3 versus 7 ± 2 days and 8 ± 4 versus 3 ± 1 days, respectively), mostly due heart failure decompensation. Although there were no significant differences in the initial ejection fraction in patients with apical or septal pacemaker implantation (31.2 ± 1.2% and 29.1 ± 1.5%, respectively, p = 0.323), the time to upgrade to CRT was significantly shorter in patients with septal pacemaker implantation (1999 ± 227 days versus 3005 ± 279 days, p = 0.005). After upgrading to CRT, patients with apical lead had a significant increase in ejection fraction (8.2%, p = 0.011), while patients with septal lead had a non-significant improvement of ejection fraction (4.5%, p = 0.448). In both, apical and septal lead patients, there was a significant improvement in NYHA class after upgrade to CRT (p = 0.03 and p = 0.02, respectively). Conclusion Although patients with septal lead had more comorbidities and hospitalizations due to heart failure, they do not benefit from the upgrade to CRT, unlike what happens in patients with apical lead. These findings can be explained by the fact that the septal lead minimizes ventricular desynchrony induced by right ventricular pacing.

Download Full-text