scholarly journals Minimizing right ventricular pacing in patients with sinus node disease and prolonged PQ interval: The impact on exercise capacity

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krystian Krzyżanowski ◽  
Dariusz Michałkiewicz ◽  
Zbigniew Orski ◽  
Robert Wierzbowski ◽  
Robert Ryczek ◽  
...  
2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 697-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNE M. GILLIS ◽  
HELMUT PURERFELLNER ◽  
CARSTEN W. ISRAEL ◽  
HENRI SUNTHORN ◽  
SALEM KACET ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 353-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihoko Miyamoto ◽  
Yuichiro Kimura ◽  
Junya Hosoda ◽  
Katsumi Matsumoto ◽  
Kohei Matsushita ◽  
...  

ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 1954-1957
Author(s):  
Luigi Padeletti ◽  
Roberto De Ponti

The association of sinus node disease and atrial tachyarrhythmias characterizes the bradycardia–tachycardia syndrome, which may result in an increased risk of heart failure, stroke, and death. Ageing and several cardiac and extracardiac diseases, which have the potential to affect both the atrial and the ventricular myocardium, can manifest their influence predominantly on the atria, leading to an atrial cardiomyopathy. In these cases, the same pathological process which leads to sinus node dysfunction can create a favourable substrate also for atrial tachyarrhythmias, which, if not present at the time of the initial diagnosis of the sinus node disease, can occur with an increasing prevalence during follow-up. In younger patients with no evident structural heart disease, a bradycardia–tachycardia syndrome may be the first clinical and unexpected manifestation of a still undiagnosed inherited genetic disease and therefore a specific diagnostic workup is necessary. In bradycardia–tachycardia syndrome, the most frequently encountered atrial tachyarrhythmia is atrial fibrillation, while typical atrial flutter is rarer. In peculiar subgroups of patients, other atrial tachyarrhythmias, such as atypical atrial flutter, macroreentrant or focal atrial tachycardia, may be present. In bradycardia–tachycardia syndrome, the evolution of atrial tachyarrhythmias clearly shows a worsening with an prevalence of associated atrial tachyarrhythmia over time. Pharmacological therapy for arrhythmias is of limited use, due to the concomitant sinus node dysfunction. The modality of pacing used to manage the sinus node disease has to be carefully chosen to minimize the evolution of atrial tachyarrhythmias. In fact, while ventricular pacing increases the incidence of atrial fibrillation and stroke, dual-chamber pacing with a specific algorithm for ventricular pacing minimization and prevention and treatment of atrial tachyarrhythmias reduces a composite endpoint of evolution to permanent atrial fibrillation, hospitalization, and death.


2014 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-40
Author(s):  
I Vita ◽  
Adriana Mitre ◽  
D Dobreanu

Abstract Background: Right ventricular apical pacing has been used since the early years of pace-makers, despite the fact that it determined nonphysiological ventricular depolarization. As medical technologies developed, septal lead implantation became feasible, in order to outrun the above mentioned inconveniences. The question whether the apical or septal lead position is better still gives rise to a lot of controversies. Different echocardiographic parameters are currently used to assess the impact of specific sites of stimulation on ventricular function. The aim of the study was to determine which of the followed synchronicity parameters varied significantly during apical stimulation, compared to septal stimulation in patients requiring single chamber pacing. Material and method: Fifty-nine patients admitted between January 1st - December 31st 2012 either for battery replacement or for first implant of a single chamber pace-maker were included in this prospective study. Thirty-eight of them had the lead placed in the apex of the right ventricle and 21 on the interventricular septum. All were subjected to echocardiografic examination after device implantation. Measurements included complete chamber and valvular assessment, apart from the synchronicity evaluation, that comprised interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD), septal to posterior wall delay (SPWMD) and electro systolic delays (ESD), in order to assess the presence and compare the relevance of interventricular and intraventricular dissyncrony. All the investigations were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Results: Although preejection times were significantly different, there were no statistically significant differences (p = 0.06) between the values of IVMD in the two groups, as well as regarding the longitudinal intraventricular dyssynchrony expressed by ESD. Significant differences appeared though, between the values of SPWMD, reflecting the fact that radial intraventricular dissyncrony is present in apical stimulation. Conclusions: During apical right ventricular pacing, radial intraventricular dissyncrony appears, while in the case of septal pacing this parameter is close to normal. Surprisingly, although right ventricular pacing determines interventricular and longitudinal intraventricular dissincrony, we found no significant differences in this respect, between apical and septal pacing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document