Why the study?
Does rapid pacing combined with forced ventricular desynchronization induce more severe heart failure compared to rapid pacing alone in a pig model?
Does rapid pacing combined with forced ventricular desynchronization induce more severe heart failure compared to rapid pacing alone in a pig model?
A novel pig model combining rapid pacing and forced ventricular desynchronization produces more severe hemodynamic and histological heart failure characteristics than traditional rapid pacing alone.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Combined rapid pacing plus desynchronization yields more severe pig HF; extends preclinical models but leaves clinical translation open.
BACKGROUND: Previous large animal heart failure models led to inhomogeneous results. Therefore, we developed a novel model combining rapid pacing with forced ventricular desynchronization. METHODS: Heart failure was induced in 20 pigs during a pacing period of 21 days. Group A (n = 10) received one right ventricular lead (220 bpm). In group B (n = 10), two leads were implanted in different right ventricular regions with beat-to-beat alternation of activation sites (each lead 110 bpm). Sham-operated pigs (n = 6) served as controls. Hemodynamics were invasively evaluated and tissue was analyzed by immunohistochemistry and zymography. RESULTS: Hemodynamics were significantly more impaired in group B with an increase of pulmonary capillary wedge and central venous pressure and a reduction of cardiac index (control 4.3 +/- 0.1 l/min/m (2); A 3.6 +/- 0.2; B 2.9 +/- 0.2, P < 0.05). Heart-to-body weight ratio was significantly higher in group B. Histological analyses showed a significant increase of cell diameters and interstitial fibrosis with significantly higher collagen contents in group B. CONCLUSION: The new model with a combination of rapid pacing and forced desynchronization of the ventricular contraction is superior to traditional heart failure models induced solely by rapid pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Möllmann et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: