Key result
Preferential LV pacing matches BiV pacing in advanced dyssynchronous HF while preserving intrinsic RV activation.
Why the study?
Standard biventricular pacing is limited by persistent nonresponse rates and deterioration of right ventricular function from iatrogenic dyssynchrony, making alternative left ventricular pacing configurations important to evaluate.
Does left ventricular pacing improve clinical status and prognosis compared to biventricular pacing in patients with advanced dyssynchronous heart failure?
Does left ventricular pacing improve clinical status and prognosis compared to biventricular pacing in patients with advanced dyssynchronous heart failure?
Preferential left ventricular pacing may offer physiological advantages over standard biventricular pacing by preserving intrinsic right ventricular activation in patients with advanced dyssynchronous heart failure.
May support preferential LV pacing to preserve RV function in dyssynchronous HF; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy constitutes a cornerstone in advanced heart failure treatment, when there is evidence of dyssynchrony, especially by electrocardiography. However, it is plagued both by persistently high (~30%) rates of nonresponse and by deterioration of right ventricular function, owing to iatrogenic dyssynchrony in the context of persistent apical pacing to ensure delivery of biventricular pacing. Left ventricular pacing has long been considered an alternative to standard biventricular pacing and can be achieved as easily as inserting a single pacing electrode in the coronary sinus. Although monoventricular left ventricular pacing has been proven to yield comparable results with the standard biventricular modality, it is the advent of preferential left ventricular pacing, combining both the powerful resynchronization potential of multipolar coronary sinus and right-sided electrodes acting in concert and the ability to preserve intrinsic, physiological right ventricular activation. In this review, we aim to present the underlying principles and modes for delivering left ventricular pacing, as well as to highlight advantages of preferential over monoventricular configuration. Finally, current clinical evidence, following implementation of automated algorithms, regarding performance of left ventricular as compared with biventricular pacing will be discussed. It is expected that the field of preferential left ventricular pacing will grow significantly over the following years, and its combination with other advanced pacing modalities may promote clinical status and prognosis of patients with advanced dyssynchronous heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Polychronis Dilaveris (2019) conducted a review in Advanced dyssynchronous heart failure. Left ventricular pacing vs. Biventricular pacing was evaluated. Preferential left ventricular pacing yields comparable results to standard biventricular pacing while preserving intrinsic right ventricular activation in advanced dyssynchronous heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: