Do alternative pacing strategies reduce pacing-induced ventricular dyssynchrony and improve left ventricular function compared to right ventricular apical pacing?
Right ventricular apical pacing can lead to pacing-induced ventricular dyssynchrony and heart failure, which may be mitigated by alternative pacing sites, minimal ventricular pacing, or upgrading to CRT.
Several studies have focused on the deleterious consequences of Right Ventricular Apical (RVA) pacing on Left Ventricular (LV) function, mediated by pacing-induced ventricular dyssynchrony. Therapeutic strategies to reduce the detrimental consequences of RVA pacing have been proposed, that includes upgrading of RVA pacing to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT), alternative Right Ventricular (RV) pacing sites, minimal ventricular pacing strategies, as well as atrial-based pacing. In developing countries, single chamber RV pacing still constitutes a majority of cases of permanent pacing, and assessment of the optimal RV pacing site is of paramount importance. In chronically-paced patients, it is crucial to maintain as close and normal LV physiological function as possible, by minimizing ventricular dyssynchrony, reducing the chances for heart failure and other complications to develop. This review provides an analysis of the deleterious immediate and long-term consequences of RVA pacing, and the most recent available evidence regarding improvements in pacing options and strategies to optimize LV diastolic and systolic function. Furthermore, the place of advanced echocardiography in the identification of patients with pacing-induced LV dysfunction, the potential role of a new predictor of LV dysfunction in RV-paced subjects, and the long- term outcomes of patients with RV septal pacing will be explored.
Khurwolah et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: