Key result
Septal RV pacing shows no benefit over apical pacing for mortality, heart failure, or cardiovascular hospitalization.
Why the study?
Optimal right ventricular lead placement remains controversial, and large studies investigating the safety and long-term prognosis of apical versus septal lead placement have been lacking.
Does septal right ventricular lead placement improve clinical outcomes compared to apical placement in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block?
Cohort (n=820)
No
Does septal right ventricular lead placement improve clinical outcomes compared to apical placement in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block?
Effect estimate: HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.72-1.30)
In a real-world cohort of patients with high-degree AV block, septal and apical right ventricular pacing demonstrated similar procedural complication rates and long-term clinical outcomes.
Similar outcomes with septal versus apical RV pacing in AV block; leaves open superiority in randomized trials.
Objectives: Optimal right ventricular lead placement remains controversial. Large studies investigating the safety and long-term prognosis of apical and septal right ventricular lead placement have been lacking. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker insertion for high-degree atrioventricular block at Edinburgh Heart Centre were investigated. Periprocedural 30-day complications were defined (infection/bleeding/pneumothorax/tamponade/lead displacement). Long-term clinical outcomes were obtained from the General Register of Scotland and electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, new heart failure, hospitalisation for a major cardiovascular event, as per the CArdiac REsynchronization in Heart Failure trial. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, new heart failure and their composite. Results: 820 patients were included, 204 (25%) paced from the septum and 616 (75%) from the apex. All baseline variables were similar with the exception of age (septal: 73.2±1.1 vs apical: 76.9±0.5 years, p<0.001). Procedure duration (58±23 vs 55±25 min, p=0.3), complication rates (18 (8.8) vs 46 (7.5)%, p=0.5) and postimplant QRS duration (152 (23) vs 154 (27) ms, p=0.4) were similar. After 1041 days (IQR 564), 278 patients met the primary endpoint, with no difference between the septal and apical groups in unadjusted (HR 0.86 (95% CIs 0.64 to 1.15)) or multivariable analysis correcting for age, gender and comorbidity (HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.30)). Similarly, no differences were observed in the secondary endpoints. Conclusions: This large real-world cohort of patients undergoing right ventricular lead placement in the septum or apex demonstrated no difference in procedural complications nor long-term clinical outcomes. Both pacing strategies appear reasonable in routine practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spath et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in High-degree atrioventricular block (n=820). Septal right ventricular pacing vs. Apical right ventricular pacing was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality, new heart failure, hospitalisation for a major cardiovascular event (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.30). Septal right ventricular pacing resulted in similar rates of mortality, heart failure, or cardiovascular hospitalization compared to apical pacing (adjusted HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.72-1.30).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: