Key result
High septal RV pacing linked to a smaller ~4% LVEF decline versus apical pacing.
Why the study?
Does permanent high interventricular septal pacing prevent left ventricular dysfunction and improve functional outcomes compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients requiring pacemakers?
Cohort (n=299)
Does permanent high interventricular septal pacing prevent left ventricular dysfunction and improve functional outcomes compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients requiring pacemakers?
Absolute Event Rate: 49% vs 43%
Right ventricular high septal pacing is a safe and effective alternative to conventional right ventricular apical pacing that better preserves left ventricular ejection fraction over long-term follow-up.
Should not yet change practice; leaves open whether randomized trials confirm benefit on outcomes.
AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the permanent high interventricular septal pacing in a long term follow up, as alternative to right ventricular apical pacing. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated: (1) 244 patients (74 ± 8 years; 169 men, 75 women) implanted with a single (132 pts) or dual chamber (112 pts) pacemaker (PM) with ventricular screw-in lead placed at the right ventricular high septal parahisian site (SEPTAL pacing); (2) 22 patients with permanent pacemaker and low percentage of pacing (< 20%) (NO pacing); (3) 33 patients with high percentage (> 80%) right ventricular apical pacing (RVA). All patients had a narrow spontaneous QRS (101 ± 14 ms). We evaluated New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, quality of life (QoL), 6 min walking test (6MWT) and left ventricular function (end-diastolic volume, LV-EDV; end-systolic volume, LV-ESV; ejection fraction, LV-EF) with 2D-echocardiography. RESULTS: Pacing parameters were stable during follow up (21 mo/patient). In SEPTAL pacing group we observed an improvement in NYHA class, QoL score and 6MWT. While LV-EDV didn't significantly increase (104 ± 40 mL vs 100 ± 37 mL; P = 0.35), LV-ESV slightly increased (55 ± 31 mL vs 49 ± 27 mL; P = 0.05) and LV-EF slightly decreased (49% ± 11% vs 53% ± 11%; P = 0.001) but never falling < 45%. In the RVA pacing control group we observed a worsening of NYHA class and an important reduction of LV-EF (from 56% ± 6% to 43% ± 9%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Right ventricular permanent high septal pacing is safe and effective in a long term follow up evaluation; it could be a good alternative to the conventional RVA pacing in order to avoid its deleterious effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Occhetta et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in Patients requiring permanent pacemaker (n=299). Right ventricular high septal parahisian pacing vs. Right ventricular apical pacing and low percentage pacing was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF). Right ventricular high septal pacing resulted in a smaller reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (53% to 49%) compared to right ventricular apical pacing (56% to 43%) over 21 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: