PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 23, 2009Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology72 citations

Search for the Optimal Right Ventricular Pacing Site: Design and Implementation of Three Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trials

View Full Paper
GKGerry KayePrincess Alexandra HospitalBSBruce S. StamblerPiedmont Atlanta HospitalRYRaymond YeeElectrophysiology

Key Result

Right ventricular septal pacing is being compared to apical pacing in three ongoing randomized trials of approximately 800 patients followed for up to 3 years to evaluate LV ejection fraction.

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=800)

Blinding

Blinded panel adjudication

Randomization

Randomized

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does right ventricular septal pacing preserve left ventricular function better than apical pacing in patients requiring frequent or continuous ventricular pacing?

P
Population
Patients requiring frequent or continuous ventricular pacing (approximately 800 patients combined across three trials). Optimize RV excludes patients with LV ejection fraction <40% prior to implantation, whereas Protect Pace and RASP include patients regardless of baseline LV systolic function.
I
Intervention
Right ventricular septal pacing (mid-septum in Optimize RV, high septum in Protect Pace, and mid-septal inflow tract in RASP)
C
Comparator
Right ventricular apical pacing
O
Outcome
Left ventricular ejection fraction evaluated by radionuclide ventriculography or echocardiographysurrogate

This paper outlines the design of three randomized trials aiming to determine whether right ventricular septal pacing is superior to apical pacing for the long-term preservation of left ventricular function.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal site to permanently pace the right ventricle (RV) has yet to be determined. To address this issue, three randomized prospective multicenter clinical trials are in progress comparing the long-term effects of RV apical versus septal pacing on left ventricular (LV) function. The three trials are Optimize RV Selective Site Pacing Clinical Trial (Optimize RV), Right Ventricular Apical and High Septal Pacing to Preserve Left Ventricular Function (Protect Pace), and Right Ventricular Apical versus Septal Pacing (RASP). METHODS: Patients that require frequent or continuous ventricular pacing are randomized to RV apical or septal pacing. Optimize RV excludes patients with LV ejection fraction <40% prior to implantation, whereas the other trials include patients regardless of baseline LV systolic function. The RV septal lead is positioned in the mid-septum in Optimize RV, the high septum in Protect Pace, and the mid-septal inflow tract in RASP. Lead position is confirmed by fluoroscopy in two planes and adjudicated by a blinded panel. The combined trials will follow approximately 800 patients for up to 3 years. RESULTS: The primary outcome in each trial is LV ejection fraction evaluated by radionuclide ventriculography or echocardiography. Secondary outcomes include echo-based measurements of ventricular/atrial remodeling, 6-minute hall walk distance, brain natriuretic peptide levels, and clinical events (atrial tachyarrhythmias, heart failure, stroke, or death). CONCLUSION: These selective site ventricular pacing trials should provide evidence of the importance of RV pacing site in the long-term preservation of LV function in patients that require ventricular pacing and help to clarify the optimal RV pacing site.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kaye et al. (2009) conducted an RCT in Requirement for frequent or continuous ventricular pacing (n=800). Right ventricular septal pacing vs. Right ventricular apical pacing was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction evaluated by radionuclide ventriculography or echocardiography. Right ventricular septal pacing is being compared to apical pacing in three ongoing randomized trials of approximately 800 patients followed for up to 3 years to evaluate LV ejection fraction.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a11ccfe1d1aaf8555562fc1https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02301.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Evaluation of Different Ventricular Pacing Sites in Patients With Severe Heart Failure1997 · 644 citations
  2. 2Total Excitation of the Isolated Human Heart1970 · 1,790 citations
  3. 3Hemodynamic Benefits of Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Pacing: Comparison with Right Ventricular Apex Pacing1998 · 110 citations
  4. 4Influence of pacing site on canine left ventricular contraction1986 · 188 citations
  5. 5Adverse Effect of Ventricular Pacing on Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation Among Patients With Normal Baseline QRS Duration in a Clinical Trial of Pacemaker Therapy for Sinus Node Dysfunction2003 · 1,783 citations