Why the study?
Is right ventricular outflow tract pacing an effective alternative to left ventricular or biventricular pacing?
Is right ventricular outflow tract pacing an effective alternative to left ventricular or biventricular pacing?
Right ventricular outflow tract pacing requires further study as a potentially easier and less expensive alternative to left ventricular pacing for patients who cannot undergo the latter.
RVOT pacing should not yet alter practice versus LV or BiV pacing; leaves open its viability as a simpler alternative pending prospective trials.
The right ventricular apex has been used as the traditional pacing site since the development of transvenous pacing in 1959. Some studies suggest that pacing the right ventricular apex may cause remodeling and is harmful. In the past decade, there have been a multitude of studies of the hemodynamic, electrophysiological, electrocardiographic, and clinical effects of ventricular pacing at other sites. Pacing of the left ventricle singly or with biventricular pacing has emerged as an effective and safe therapy for moderate to severe congestive heart failure in patients with prolonged QRS complexes. Studies of alternate right ventricular sites, like the right ventricular outflow tract, have given mixed results. Not all patients can be treated with left ventricular pacing, which is a time-consuming and difficult procedure. Right ventricular pacing is easier and less expensive than left ventricular pacing and further study of additional right ventricular sites seems warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riedlbauchová et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: