Why the study?
Atrial and RV pacing carry adverse outcomes in first-degree AV block, whereas His-bundle pacing provides physiological activation that may improve synchrony.
Does atrial-His-bundle sequential pacing improve acute echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters compared to atrial or AV-sequential pacing in patients with first-degree AV block?
Does atrial-His-bundle sequential pacing improve acute echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters compared to atrial or AV-sequential pacing in patients with first-degree AV block?
In patients with first-degree AV block, normalizing atrioventricular or inter-ventricular dyssynchrony with His-bundle pacing did not acutely improve cardiac output or loading conditions compared to atrial pacing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
His-bundle pacing shows no acute hemodynamic benefit in first-degree AV block; leaves open whether chronic effects warrant randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Atrial pacing and right ventricular (RV) pacing are both associated with adverse outcomes among patients with first-degree atrioventricular block (1°AVB). His-bundle pacing (HBP) provides physiological activation of the ventricle and may be able to improve both atrioventricular (AV) and inter-ventricular synchrony in 1°AVB patients. This study evaluates the acute echocardiographic and hemodynamic effects of atrial, atrial-His-bundle sequential (AH), and atrial-ventricular (AV) sequential pacing in 1°AVB patients. METHODS: Patients with 1°AVB undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation were included. Following left atrial (LA) catheterization, patients underwent atrial, AH- and AV-sequential pacing. LA/left ventricular (LV) pressure and echocardiographic measurements during the pacing protocols were compared. RESULTS: Thirteen patients with 1°AVB (mean PR 221 ± 26 ms) were included. The PR interval was prolonged with atrial pacing compared to baseline (275 ± 73 ms, p = .005). LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was highest during atrial pacing (62 ± 11%), intermediate with AH-sequential pacing (59 ± 7%), and lowest with AV-sequential pacing (57 ± 12%) though these differences were not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in LA or LV mean pressures or LV dP/dT. LA and LV volumes, isovolumetric times, electromechanical delays, and global longitudinal strains were similar across pacing protocols. CONCLUSION: Despite pronounced PR prolongation, the acute effects of atrial pacing were not significantly different than AH- or AV-sequential pacing. Normalizing atrioventricular and/or inter-ventricular dyssynchrony did not result in acute improvements in cardiac output or loading conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Loring et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: