Key result
Right ventricular outflow tract pacing resulted in a similar degree of mechanical left ventricular dyssynchrony compared to right ventricular apical pacing.
Why the study?
Does right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) pacing reduce left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony compared to right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing?
Cross-Sectional (n=33)
Single-blind
No
Does right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) pacing reduce left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony compared to right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.39% vs 7.83%
p-value: p=<0.001
RVOT pacing produces a similar degree of left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony as RV apical pacing, suggesting it may not protect against pacing-induced LV dysfunction.
Does not support RVOT over RVA pacing to limit dyssynchrony; leaves open site-specific effects on long-term LV function.
Background and Objectives : Long-term right ventricular (RV) apex pacing has been associated with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. However, pacing in the RV outflow tract (RVOT) is associated with a narrower QRS duration and may have a more normal LV activation in comparison to RV apical (RVA) pacing. We hypothesized that RVOT pacing is associated with less mechanical dyssynchrony compared to RVA pacing and that it also more closely resembles mechanical activation in normal controls with a narrow QRS. Subjects and Methods : We studied 9 patients with RV pacing, 9 with left bundle branch block (LBBB), and 15 normal controls with a narrow QRS. In the RV pacing group, we paced from the RVA and RVOT. At the end of each pacing train, we obtained echocardiographic images in the apical 4- and 2-chamber views and obtained the following parameters: the compression/expansion crossover point (CEP) for myocardial strain and the time from QRS onset to the CEP in the strain image. The degree of dyssynchrony was evaluated using the dispersion and standard deviation of CEP times in 12 segments of the LV. Results: Significant dyssynchrony was observed in the RVOT pacing group compared to the group with normal QRS. No significant difference was observed in LV mechanical dyssynchrony among the RVOT pacing, RVA pacing, and LBBB groups. Conclusion: RVOT pacing is associated with significant LV dyssynchrony. Although the RVOT has been recommended as an alternative site for pacing, this approach may have adverse effects on long-term LV function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2008) conducted a cross-sectional in Supraventricular tachycardia with normal LV function, idiopathic LBBB, and normal controls (n=33). Right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) pacing vs. Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing, LBBB, and normal sinus rhythm was evaluated on Dispersion of compression/expansion crossover point (CEP) time corrected by heart rate (p=<0.001). Right ventricular outflow tract pacing resulted in a similar degree of mechanical left ventricular dyssynchrony compared to right ventricular apical pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: